BPKKCII OF
HON. WILLIAM A. WALLACE.
Th Senate, a* in Comrnlttoo of tlio
Whole, having tinder consideration tho
bill (11. K. No. 1) mitkll Appropriation*
fur tno support of the Army for the fiscal
year ending Juno 80, 1880, and for other
purpose* —
MK. WALLACE said :
Mr. President, this bill cornea from
the Committee on Appropriations of
this body. It does not come it* ha* been
asserted in this Chamber, from a secret
conclave or caucus. It come* from the
authorized organization of this Chamb
er, the Senate Couimittoo on Appropria
tions; and 1 rise now to Hpuuk simply
because 1 ant one of its members
charged with that duty. A* one of that
committee, I rise to speak to the pur
poses, the causes, the reasons that
prompted that committee to agree to
the insertion of the clause which is con
tested by the Senator from Maine. This
bill came through the Senate door by
the usual channel of communication
with the House of Representatives, in
the hands of it* Clerk, to this body. It
went to the President's desk, and
thenco to the Committee on Appropria
tions, and it caine back to thi* Chamber
from that committee in the usual man
ner. Nay. more, sir, it is the bill al
most in wort! and letter that was adopt
ed by the committees of conference at
the last session of < longress, agreed upon
by the committees of conference of the
two Houses, and which but for the dis
agreement between these committees
upon this single section would have
been passed by that Congress. This
lull, so far from having been treated a*
measures that come from a com mil too
of conierenee usually nre, ha* been do
bated and contested again and again in
committee, in the House and in the
Senate Chamber. The declaration that
it is the edict of caucus i* mere idle
wind ; such a statement ha* nothing
whatever to base it. Thi* is tbe bill
upon which the two Houses disagreed
in the last Congress; it is the bill *h*t
came from the House, that went to tbe
committee, that came back to b>*
Chamber through the regular commit
tee* of this body, ami it is now put
upon its passage with the forms and in
the customary mode adopted in such
cases.
This bill contains but a single disput
ed section. To that the Senator trout
.Maine addressed himself; that we ad
dress ourselves. There is but a single
issue presented by this bill, to that 1
shall try to confine myself. All Ib-l
hear me and the country know that the
convulsive throes of a great people in a
tremendous civil war have caused many
departures from those vital principle*
that lie at the base of all civil liberty.
The history of our race and the prece
dents of the past point them out a* e*
ecntial elements in the preservation of
our own freedom, and its most earnest
struggle* ever have been and ever will
be made for their safety. The neees-i
-tio* of the hour rnny cause a free peo
ple to bear for a time the subjection of
the civil to the military power, the sut
pension of the writ ot haltat corpus or
the presence of armed troop* nl elec
tion polls, but these must pas* away
witli the necessity that gave tiiera birth, i
They can never be crystallized upon the
necks of Anglo-Saxons.
The single issue involved in thi* hill
i, shall the executive arm of the Gov
eminent longer possess the power to
place troops at the election poll# ?
Their presence there or the power to
place them there is equally a menace to
the people and a departure from tbo
right of free elections. That is the is
sue, the sole, the only issue that it in
this bill. We make no other ; we will
be diverted not from thi*.
The mere presence of armed troops
at the (toll* is a menace to individual
liberty. The shadow of the jower of
armed men is in itself a threat, and no
free people will bear it. It was one of
the struggles between Charles 1 and hi*
first three Parliaments that he should
yield to them the right he claimed
to quarter troops upon the people. Far
liament refused to give bun money and
he was accustomed to send troops into
tbe country districts and coni)>el them
to be quartered and supported by the
people without authority of law. The
Commons placed it in their bills; they
formulated and crystallized it in the fie
tition of right, and they made the king
yield to their just demands in behalf
of the people. This light and privilege
is registered in the bill of rights of
nearly every constitution in all this
iand. The power to quarter troops
upon the people was wrung from the
kingly power of Great Britain by plac
ing it upon bills under which be was
voted supplies to carry on a war for the
Falatinate with Spaia. Before they
would yield him those supplies they
compelled him to agree to a concession
of this great right, and the right to be
free from such intrusion beeamo fixed
and certain. The correlative right in
regard to free elections and the arsMore
of troops from the polla is found still
farther back in Knglish history. The
menace of armed troop* at tb# polls
was prohibited by statut* in tbo wtign
of George 11, and it recites the exis
tence of the right to lie free from this
menace as old as the time of Kdward
J. In the thirteenth century, nwly
six hundred years sgo, t.ie race from
which we obtain our liberty and law,
from whose loins we mainly sprang, as
serted the doctrine that this right of
free election belonged to tbo people and
ought not to be jeopardized, it was a
right wrung, absolutely wrung, from the
hand of power in the time of Kdward
I. It was resurrected in tho time of
George 11, and then enacted into lew
in 1835. Let us see what was don*. I
shall not read the statute. A law was
past in 1735, which forbade the pres
ence of armed troops within two mile*
of the election polls. Subseouently, in
1741, the executive power (forgetting
the existence of this statute) —
During the corrupt administration of
Bir Robert Walpole, at an slection held for
the city of Westminister, under an order
signed by three magistrate* of the county,
a body of armed soldiers was marched up
and stationed in the ehurcb-yard of Bt.
Paul, Convent Garden, in the vicinity of
the poll; and on this being shown to the
House of Commons, they passed a resolu
tion a (firming "that tho presence of a
regular body of armed soldiers at an •lec
tion of members to serve In Parliament Is
a high infringement of th* liberties o t the
subject, a manifest violation of tlio free
dom of elections, and an open defiance of
the laws and constitution of this kingdom.*'
The high haiiitr was taken into custody by
order of the House, and tho three magis
trates who signed the order was brought
to tho bar and reprimanded by the Kpoalcer,
upon their knees, a* the House had direct
ed ; and after thi# tho House passed a vote
of thanks to the Speaker (or hi# repri
mand of tho dilimpients, and directed tho
saiiio to he printed— llriflh tip's heading
(■'rum on Election*, 603, 601.
Sir, this right, thus vindicated, is a
part of our system. These privileges
are a part of our own free liberties.
They come to us with the system of
laws under which we live. They belong
to us a* an integral part of our system
of free elections, ami we would be false
to our highest duty if we should fail to
protect thein and assert their existence.
I now quote from McCrary on Flections,
section -118. He says:
There can, however, ho no doubt hut
that the law h*ik* with great disfavor
upon anything like an interference by the
military witii the freedom of an election.
An armed force in tho neighl*irhood of
the poll*, is almost of necessity a menace to
the voters, and an interference with their
freedom ami independence, und if such
armed force he in tho hands of or under
tho control of tho partisan friends of any
particular candidate or set of candidates,
the probability of improper influence be
comes still stronger.
This proposition docs not stand alone
on the thought of taking out of this
section the authority for the presence of
armed troops at the |>o!l* under Federal
law, but it goes beyond this and finds
its reason and it* root in the right of
the States to control thi* subject entire
ly. The control of free elections, the
guarantee of their existence, does not
belong to the Federal Government; it
la-longs to the Slates themselves and al
ways lias belonged there. The consti
tution of almost every State in this
country contains in its bill of rights a
guarantee of free elections. The Sales
controlled the franchise. With tlieni,
both before and since the formation of
the Constitution, wa* vested the power
and the right to guard tho purity and
the freedom of elections.
Let the Senators from New England,
and the Senators from the great We-t,
and the Senators from the Middle States
and (he South take up the bills of right
of their respective States and see what
is guaranteed. In nearly all of them
the guarantee is that all election# "-hull
l>e free. Here i* the crystallization of
tho doctrine that comes to u* from the
time of Kdward I. which found voice in
the time of t'harles I and George 11,
and is now one of the privileges and
rights of this j>eople. In Pennsylvania,
as long since at 1803* it* rulers enacted
this statute ;
No body "f troops, being regularly cm
ployed in the Army < f the United Stat. -
or of this State, shall appear and be pres
ent, either armed or unarmed, at any
place of election within this State, during
the time of said election.
This wholesome provision wa# re en
acted in 1839, and it i now a part of
the law of that Commonwealth. The
enactment of this law followed the
time of the alien and sedition law.
The necessity had come for tbe people
to enact it. Jefferson wa* in |*>vrer
here, bis party was in control in that
great State, and public sentiment found
vent in tbe statute that protected at the
[•oils the citizen from armed interfer
ence or control in any war by Federal
or other troojsi. New York crystallized
this right in herstatute# a*early a* 1 Hi,
nnd prohibited the military from ap
pearing or exercising on election day,
or during ten days preceding it; and
the same is the law in Wisconsin,
Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, nnd
Rhode Island forbid their militia from
parading on election day, and imposed
penalties for its violation. Virginia, by
iier constitution, exempted tho voter '
from military service on election day, !
and denied the franchise to every non
commissioned officer and p>rivate in the
United States Army or seaman or mi
rine in tho United States Navy, while
Maryland prescribed that no officer
should muster or march any troojx in
view of the poll# on election day.
I take tho constitution of Pennsylva
nia of 1873 and 1 read from tho bill of j
rights :
Election* shall be free and equal; and j
no power, civil or military, shall at any j
time Interfere to prevent the free exercise
of the rights of suffrage.
This is embodied, too, in the constitu
tion* of Colorado and Missouri, enacted
since, almost in word and letter.
But, sir. the Federal Constitution has
not a syllable on this subject. Neither j
in its main provisions nor in the origi
nal Amendments which secured the
liberties of the people is there one word
upon the subject of free election*. The I
Federal Government had no control j
over the subject; and they did not at
tempt to assert anyright in reference j
to it. The control of elections and the '
guarantee for them belonged to States ;
there it wo* vested and there it is to re i
main. I'rior to 186-1 the only attempt j
at it* control hero wa* when John Mar
shall, in the House of Representatives,
in the year 1800, under the elder Ad
ams, ret>orted a statute giving to the
Federal Government control of elec
lions so far as to prevent armed interfer
ence at the polls; but when the mea
sure came to the Senate it wa* defeated.
It failed because the Federal Govern
ment had no control over it. There
was no dream, no thought, of exercis
ing this right by the Federal Govern
ment untif it was done under the war
power in the border State* in 1862 *63
64. Troop* were then placed at the
polla for the alleged protection of what i
was claimed to be the right* of *o called ■
loyal men there. The first exercise of
this right by the Federal Government
was under the war power. It did not
come from any grant from the people
or th* State*, but solely and exclusively
from what WM claimed as a war power,
and like many others of tbe name char
acter, force was it* essential element.
To escape from this and to rnator to tbe
people that which they had never part
ed from with their own consent, the act
of 1865 was introduced at the close of
the war by Senator Powell, of Ken
tucky. In ita original form it gave se
curity from intrusion and re enacted
what was the undoubted law of every
Stale. It wa* not permitted to p**a
until it wa* amended by Republican
Senators by tbe ioeertion of the words
that aro now proponed to he token out
and the guarantee of free election*
claimed front the Federal Government
thus became it menu* for intruding it*
mailed hand at the |k>llh. Nothing hut
the abnormal condition of the country
in 1805 and since could have produced
the excrescence that we nowr propone to
remove.
The hill as originally introduced I
have it before nte) had no words author
izing troops to he present either to re
|>el the armed enemies of the United
States or to keen the peace at the poll*.
As introduced the hill was a guarantee
of the right that existed in the State-,
and a restriction upon the power of the
Federal Government, which waa then
being used wrongfully and oppressively
upon the people of the border States,
The hill was sent to the Committee on
the .Judiciary of this body, a Republi
can committee. It slumbered there for
a number of months, and then came
I hack with a rejwirt by Mr. Howard with
| a negativo recommendation. He hold*
that that the right to exercise the war
power in IHO4 to prevent men who were
not loyal from voting was a just and
proper exercise ot power. Senator Po
well, desiring to relieve hi* people from
wrongful oppression, pressed the hill
again and again, until June, 1864, it waa
I put upon its passage, and then he
agreed to the amendment that troops
ought he used to repel the armed ene
inies of the United States. This wo*
| adopted without dissent.
Then Mr. Pomcroy, of Kansas, a He.
publican Senator moved to add the
words "or to keep the peace at the
polls." Upon that amendment the
yeas and nays were called. Kvory
"yea'' vote was given by a Republican
and every Democrat voted "nav.''
Keverdy Johnson, John P. Hale, and
Senator Hick*, of Maryland, voted with
1 leinocrat*. This provision which is now
proposed to he eliminated, "or to keep
the J ware at the jad'*," was adopted hv
a vote of 16 Republican* against 15
Democrat* and others. Then the ques
tion came Upon the passage of the bill
a* thus amended, and the Senator from
Kentucky,desiring to protect hi* people,
was willing to take anything to save
tbeiu front the pressure that wa ii|>on
them, and accepted the hill in that
lorm ; but even then they were scarce
ly willing to pass it. Nowhere else in all
the history of this Government had
this claim of power appeared. Here,
and here alone, the onlv instance of
the iron-clad arm of the Federal power
appearing at the ballot-box.
Mr. Iti tisß. Will the Senator per
mit me to interrupt him just at that
point. T
Mr. W itttrt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ulnar Doe* the Senator pre*
enl tho idea that the amendment put
on that bill by the Republican Senator*
was to control voting at the elections in
Kentucky by ik>tuocral* who had a
right to vote; or will the Senator ac
cept the suggestion that it was to keep
the rebel army that had gone front Ken
tucky to tight in the confederate rank*
from coming back and controlling the
elections? in other words they w*-r<-
confederate soldier* when the fighting
was going on, ami they voted in a Union
Stale when elections were held. That
wa* the whole of the provision.
Sir. Ho**. They were Democratic
voters.
Mr. Jit ainx. They were Democratic
voter* who were fighting ng.tinst the
Union under Jeff. Davis and who came
back to control the elections of the
State of Kentucky.
Mr. Wtiuci. The Senator from
Maine ha* interjected a speech into the
body of what I was saying. He has not
asked a question, but in his usual man
ner he ha* injected hi* thought into the
midst of my argument. He inay have
that opinion or not, just a* he pleases.
My assertion wa*. and it i*, that the use
of this power by the Federal Govern
ment was simply thu eiercise of the
war powor, and that Senators, includ
ing himself, who undertake to sustain
it follow legitimately to its conclusion
the argument that the war power fifteen
years after the end of the war ought still
to control the right* and liberties of
this )>eople. That is my answer to the
Senator's injected speech. (Manifesta
tion* of applause in the galleries, j
The presiding officer, (Mr. McMim.**
in the chair.) Will the Senator from
Pennsylvania su*|>end a moment ? The
galleries must not applaud under any
circumstances. The Sergcant-al-Arm*
will sec that the rules of the Senate are
enforced.
Mr. W allacr. We are done with the
abnormal condition that came from the
war. This people ask to he restored
to their normal rights, whether it he in
the South or in the North. Just here
I will tell the Senator from Maine that
at the election in 1860 for governor of
Pennsylvania, in the third precinct of
the fifth ward of the city "ol Philadel
phia, an armed body of marines were
brought to the polls; that they took
possession thereof and closed and kept
them closed for an hour until they saw fit
to open thctn and |>rmit those to vote
whom they thought ought to vole. Sir,
the mail clad arm of the Federal Gov
ernment has shown itself in Rroad
street. Philadelphia, within three years.
The |*eople of our State want no more
of this. I speak for my own people.
They want free elections, without either
the shadow or the substance of military
power, either .State or Federal. They
want the very essence of the provisions
of our own Constitution recognised in
practice aa it is in truth as the law of j
the land. I am here representing so
far as 1 can that people in asking at the
hands of the Senate of the United
Slates that this menace, this threat, this
assumption of right that doe# not be
long to the Federal Government may he
eliminated from her statute* and that
the .States and the people of the States
may control this question as they ought
and of right are entitled to do. In
Mexioo, even the poor down trodden
Mexico, when our troop* were at the j
city of Mexioo in the war of 1846-'47,
because there wa* a provision in their
laws that troops should not be preaent
at the election polls the Federal army
was withdrawn therefrom in order that
there might seem to be no men see or
control, and Pens l'enay was elected in
the room of Santa Anna. The Federal
troops obeyed the law of Mexioo be
cause it was a part of the Meican guar
antee of civil liberty, and because our
Army, its officers, and iu soldiers, In
those days recognised the doctrine
which wo contend for now, that the
menace for armed men at tho poll* is
utterly incompatible with elections.
We propose to take out the word*
"or to keep tho peace at the polls," and
the stiitute will then Htuud as i* tho law
of Pennsylvania to-day. Of tho neces
sity for this action, arising from practi
cal experience, I shall not now speak.
I content myself with the assertion of
the broad principle that free elections
with troops at the poll* are impossible.
Tho right and the power in tho execu
tive arm of either State or Federal Gov
ernment to place troops at the polls on
election day is an utter deniai of what
is vital to the free exercise of the elec
tive franchise, I care not whether
there he but one soldier to ten thousand
square miles or one soldier to every acre
in this broad country. Behind the
power of one soldier acting under the
authority of the executive command of
military power at the polls stand forty
million people. It i* the obedience of
| this people to law. it i* the recognition
that law i-t mighty and that the man
I with his blue coat and his bayonet is a
I representative of forty million of |>coplc
that gives potency and majesty to it is
presence. When you place hun there
a* that representative the effect is as it
| was in the precinct I have named in our
own State in )S6'J. Then all men liowrd
| theii heads in forced obedience, for the
j Federal power was there to intimidate
and control them ; they dare not at-
I lack it ; I Key must acquiesce; the law
j unlawfully asserted fed obedience,
I bis sentiment of obedience to law
• actuates all of our |teop|p, and it is (•-
| cause law and the power of law hi ing*
troops to the polls without necessity and
in derogation of one of our great right*
that we seek to repeal this statute, in
; my own experience I have bad to send
; an unarmed slierilf to arrest a crowd of
I men acting in violation law. When it
wa* suggested that we should have troop*
i to aid the officer, l said no, a true and
I brave man acting in the | erforrnsnce of
; hi* duty under tin* command of law i*
worth a thou-and troops; and it so
| proved. The feeble assertion that there
i no danger of intimidation because
there i* only one soldier to the thousand
square miles i* simply begging the
question. Behind that ono soldier
stands the power of a great people. At
the polls he i under the control of hi*
officer and lie may be directed to do
what partisan aim* or malignity fttsy
(find for him to do. Such a po*dblo u-e
..f power i fbe deprivation of thai great
i right that finds its existence in every
bill of rights in this country, tlist be
long* to the j-eople, is a part of their
ancient liberties, and to be protected
and preserved even at the lacrifice of
the blood of Anglo-Saxon*.
There ha* been in the past nothing
of the kind, and ii* enforcement now
lake* away one of the greatest anil dear
eat right* that belong* to tins people.
Wo propose to take uwav this power.
We propose to stand by tiio American
•ystom of free elections. That is our
doctrine in this bill. We propose to
stand bv the \merican system as it ex
it in the bill* of nghts of the State*
and n it wa* found all over tbi* country
until this exercise of war power in D6'J,
1 -63. and I I. We j-rof->p to separate
the ballot fr >rn the bayonet. We pro
j>o#e to restore to the civil power its ab
solute control over all the machinery
of government. A free system of laws
cannot tolerate even the tie of
force at the fountain-head of power. It
is a standing menace, a |>crpetual threat.
In the interest of the ].eople, in the
light of the plainest principles of civil
liberty, the performance of a plain duty,
in the exercise of the legislative power
of this Jieople, we piropose to restore to
the American |ieople their own system
of free elections.
The Congress of the United State*
make* appropriation* for but two years.
The President of the United Slate* can
not enlist a man or pay a dollar without
an appropriation byCongres*. Congress
inake* rules for the government ot tho
land and naval forces, and these short
appropriations ami this limited authority
of the Kxeculive over fhein are the very
basis of our system. We projose. a* 1
have said, in the execution of a plain
purpose, following precedent* and prac
tice and law and organic law to their
legitimate results, to restore by this bill
fo the American |Kop|o their own sys
tem of free election*. Why should we
not do this? Who denies the right to
free elections? Has the Senator from
Maine denied this right? Will any
Senator deny this right? Will any
gentleman attempt to argue that the
right to free election* doe* not belong
to this people as one of their great car
dinal rights ? If so, why not restore it ?
The answer is much narrower than the
concealed but real argument. Are the
|>eople not entitled to free elections?
Why is it that Senators do not riae in
their place* and assert that the people
have not a right to lie free from Kxecu
live interference? The argument of the
Senator from Maine is that you will not
be interfered with, no troop* will inter
fere with you ; there are only so many
troops here and so many there ; you are
not being interfered with. But the j
Senator forgets that upon the statute-
Isooks of tin* country there stands a law !
which gives to the Kxeculive the power, j
the right to do thia thing, and that in
partisan bitterness, in the control of
elections by one party or the other, a
standing menace may lecwnr an actual,
a terrible fact in the future as it has
been in the past.
Are we met with a frank denial of the
value of this right or of the right of this
people to !>e freed at the polls from the
mcuace of armed force ? I venture to
say that no Senator will put his argu
ment upon that ground. Nonesobold
a* to assert that in the heated partisan
contests that occur in the elections of
this country the presence of armed
troops, controlled fcy the one or the
other political party, conduces to free
election*. Kit her the substance or the
shadow of military power at the polls is
destructive of the essential element
contemplated by almost every Htale
constitution in this oountry in its ex
press guarantee of free elections.
Another argument is used Let us
see what it is. i- trst, we are denied the
power to mold legislation. That is the
first argument. The two Houses of
Congress, the legislative power, to de
nied the right to mold legislation iu its
own way. Heoond, It to said to be a rev
olutionary practice and ooeroive of the
Executive i end third, that our intent
i* (that in the drift of the argument
made hy the Menu tor from Maine) to
break down the Government. My col
league in the House, the oldest In **r
vice there, who trcins with the other
aide, who doe* not belong to the demo
cratic party, treated thin talk about
revolution arid coercion very well when
he raid it wan "revolutionary in a Pick
wickian ronae." There is no revolution
nor coercion hero. Thin in an attempt
to play upon word* arid upon pa-ion in
order to get a renporiM* from the peo
ple in antagonism to the assertion of
the people'* plain right.
The form of this legislation i sustain
ed hy precedent* without number. The
processes that we pursue are the mode*
of the (Vrtintitution. We neither seek
to coerce tlie Executive nor submit to
lie coerced by him. We follow the line
of precedent and the mode* pointed
out by the Constitution in every partic
ular; there in no departure. The la
bored argument ol the Senator from
Maine that thin i* the dictate of a dem
ocratic can en a is an entire error. No
democratic cnucua ever *aw thi* bid, no
agency hut that of tlx- Senate anil the
I llouae and the cornmitt<-<-s of the Senate
] and the llouae ever s.iw thi* hill and
' paused iij on it. It ia her<- u* a result of
] the right of the r< |>re*entative of thi*
people to mold legialation through the
j recogniied com-tilutionul hodie*.
Mr. PLAIKK. 1 Maid, if the Senator
| w ill pet mil me, that the Senator from
j Kentucky Mr. Beck] stated on the
' floor that a committee of the democrat
caucus waa preparing there measure*.
; I hat ia w hat I raid. If there i* an issue
of fact it la between the Senator from
i'uniiaylvania and the Senator from
Kentueky, not between the Senator
I from Pennsylvania and myself. I have
! it here:
Mr. II*;< K . An lie i chairman of a com
mittee—
That i# tiie Senator from < 'hio, jMr.
Thurrnaii.j— •
that i- cmrideriiig all theae question*, and
• In-11l vo the d-imin ratic partv will act
1 windy, &c.
Then follow*-.
Mr. CoxktiKo. Will the Ssnalor al
low m<- to undenitand him * Towhatcom-
I mittui due* he refer** one of which the
S- nator from Ohio i* chairman 7
Mr. l!r< K A democratic committee
aow con*idering bow it i* b-*t for thi* ride
••f the ||, lire, who have the responsibility,
to *' t to determine how we c*n L->t present
the menruro* fairly arid properly.
And then before any Hou* commit
tee appointed, fa-fore there w *ny
• .m-truiiieutality of a parliamentary char
a. ter through which they could he
I launched, the** measure* came out full
fledged from a democratic caucus,
Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Preaident, I re
. peat my statement. The Senator from
M ine and the Senator front Kentucky
; a lit settle that ia*ue f.etween them*e|ve*.
I repeat that the-e lull* came through
i constitutional jirocesse* in the nvie
and through the channel* that the Con
atitution and the precedent* joint out,
and that no democratic caucui or com
! nntlee of a dttßOOfllk caucu* ever mn
aidercrl thi* bill or ever agreed that it
j ahould lie rej>orted.
it it *aid that we are trying to onerre
; the Executive. There i no a'ttempt here
at coercion. Where do you find it in
I tbia hill f It exist* only in the lively
j imagination of the gentlemen who a*-
ert it. Sir, we will not coerce, nor will
■ve mbn.it to coercion, nolwithttanding
the finely rounded periods with which
the >enator from Maine concluded hii
remark* a few miuute* ago in the effort
to produce coercion.
We. have our rights under the Oonsti
lution, and we propose to follow them
to their legitimate conclusions. The
Kxecutive ha* hi* right*, and our per
formance of our duty will not be by one
jot or tittle in the way of hi* perform
ance of his duty as he think* right to
jierfortn it under hi* oath and the Con
*titution. In the exercise of a plain
duly inijioaed upon the legislative |w
er, which ia vested with the power to
raise armies, to make rule# for their
government, and to enact all law* nec
essary to carry into execution the now-
I era granted to it, theae tiodic# are about
I to paaa thi* bill in accordance wjlh law
and precedent. There is no provision
of the hill violating the Constitution,
and no pretense will lie made that any
doe*. It* ditjiuted clause relate# to the
erojiloyinent of the trooji* whose pay we
vote. We have no issue with any other
I branch of the Government. We seek
to make none. In the exercise of the
rule of the majority we follow practice,
j.recedcut, law, and organic law to their
legitimate n-*ult. as we judge our duty
' call* u. We will not be driven into
any issue with any other power. Kach
of these bodies muat jierform for itself,
under the oath that it ha* taken to sup
jiort the Constitution, iU clear and plain
duty. When the Senator taunt* us with
the exercise of the negative of the Kx
ecutive he undertake* to coerce the
representatives of the people and of the
States, the bodies vested hy the Consti
tution with the legislative power.
The ri|cht to place legislation upon
money hills belongs to the legislative
l-ower. It ia nowhere denied in the
Constitution. The propriety of the ex
ercise of this right ia to be judged of
by the two Houses, and hy thorn alone.
No other branch of the Government can
object to the hill for this reason. We
are the sole and exclusive judgee of this
question, and when we act our judg
ment cannot he hy either the
executive or the judiciary. The subject
matter of the legislation may lie criticis
ed, hut the form of lu enactment ia
aoleiy within our own discretion.
The till of laat year conceded all that
la asked hy this bill. In conceding the
ps*jx rseuMfu# clause everything that is
in this bill was conceded, and yet we
have this "tempest in a tea-pot" about
nothing, so far as the power goes, at
least. It is the removal ola menace, a
threat upon the people, and the objec
tion to iu form was utterly and- abac
lutely conceded away in the legislation
of last year,
i affirm then, thai the right to
place legialntion on money bills foe the
protection of the elvil liberties of the
people belongs to the legislative power
and cannot bo denied to it by any other
branch of the Government: aremd, that
the exercise of this right ia sanctioned
by practioe j tkird, that ii is sustained hy
precedent* a* old as the time of Charles
1 j and, fmirik, that this legislation Is
oonstlluUonal and necessary and violates
no provision of the FVders.
I-et us *e. '/' hi* power hb eery
frequently exercised by Con, 4 and
the precedents arc numerous and well
known.
In order to ascertain what proportion
of legialation ooneerning the Army of
a general and jierrnanent nature had
en enacted previous to IH7I upon ap
prcj>riation bills I made an examination
of the Keviwed Statute* of the United
States, PANNED AT the flrnt NO anion of the
forty third Congn*-1873 4-which "em
brace the Statute* of the United Ktate*,
general and |<erm*nent in their nature,
in force on the l*t <Uy of December, ,
1H73. a* revised and consolidated by ]
commissioners appointed under an set i
of Congress." These law* are found j
under title 14, "The Army," and include
section* I<KM to 13(11, both inclusive, of
the ItevUed Statute*. The number of
section* under the title of "Arrny" 1*
two hundred and sixty-eight. <>f tfie-e
ninety two were derived directly from
apjiropriation acts, including acts ap
|>roj>riuting for thei-upport of the Army,
sundry civil, consular and diplomatic,
, Military Academy, "and fortification*.
I hu* it HJIJM ar* that more than one-
J third of the general and permanent pro
. vision* of law regarding the Army were
; enacted tij-e>n appropriation hill* prior
|to 1-K74. But, in fact, the proportion
j wa* much more than one-half, because
many other sections were derived from
: act* consolidating the statutes in rela
tion to the Army. |.*,ed from time to
time, beginning at an early day in our
1 |egi*lation, which statutes were derived
in great | art from jirovisions attached
Ito j.rcviou* ajtpropriation hills. Theae
permanent and general provision* of
law derived fjorn appropriation hill*
were passsl upon sneh in the years 1K.32,
1840, 1543. 134 C., IMs I. IK.V 2, 1R53, 1860.
1867, 1858, I 869 1880, 1881, 18811883,
1180(1, ]ko7. i stK, 1 MO'.i, Ik7(j, 172,
and I*7-5. ami the greater psrt of such
b-gialation on appropaiation lull* con
cerning the Arrny was enacted during
the rule of the republican jiarty. 0
| Second. I aert that this doctrine is
u*tained by precedent* a* old a the
tune of C'liarls* I. The difficulties, as !
have already said, between the first
three Parliaments of hi# reign arid the
King grew out of effort* on his j.art to
obtain supplies for the war for reoover
-1 ing the palatinate from Spain without
j concession* of any part of what he re
' garded a* his prerogative*, and on tbo
part of the Commons to make the sup
i plies the condition* of oonces-ion* in fa
| vor of civil liberty. Now I take frcrn
Knglish history the following :
j The Common House of Parliament in
the year 1511 (third year of Henry VIII
'd sanguinary memory) tacked several
acts of attainder a* "amendments" to
simple bills. These, of course, were
leveled at certain lx>rd*. The Commons
never knew any limitation in that re
gard except such as they deliberately
passed upon in their own right, and
these assertion* of the petition of right
were a mere enforcement of their an
cient privileges
("lisrle* 1 levied ship-money because
Parliament included in "money bills"
the guarantee of jKiiitical rights. Every
body know* that the resistance of the
King was not against the association of
the items. The puerility of a separa
tion of the items wa* not thought of—
even hy s Stuart! It was great cardinal
principles upon which the Commons
stood, and it wa* these the King resist
ed. He wa* compelled to yield, and his
subsequent fatuity lost him his head.
Wilnani Hi. soon after hi* aooewion,
made large grant* to bis favorites. These
were under the law. and made with the
; content of the oouneil. In Parliament
they were deemed exorbitant and prej
udicial to the public good. Henoe the
House of lerd made the matter a sub
jject of mild official rebuke by resolution
in the year 1700. but the Commons went
further and tacked to a "money bill"
I (for the aujqmrl of the army ami navy)
an amendment called the "resumption
act," which annulled all the grants,
knowing at the time that some of them
had been sold by the grantees. The
lord* resisted long: the King at first
resolved to stand by them, but he final
ly yielded, and the "money bill" passe*]
with the unj*lataldc amendment. Yet
the Commons of that day were particu
larly scrupulous in regard to "amend
ments" and precedents. In the year
17irj the Common* passed an act of at
tainder against the Pretender (just then
recognised by louis XVI) when war
was imminent, arising out of the Span
: ish succession. The lords put on an
"amendment" Including the name of
the Pretender's mother, (Mary of Kste,
widow of Jatne* 11, who bad recently
died after declaring Mary as regent,)
hut Uie Commons would not allow it,
declaring that any amendment was im
proper on a bill of such importance.
They wer# reminded of precedent* in
the time of Henry VIII, but the Com
mons would not yield.
Aa the right or the Common* to put
amendments on "money bills" was un
questionable, the lord* would also ex
ercise their right: so a short time be
fore the death of the King the lords
Hrmtlrerf. Never to j*ue e money bill
with a Cause tacked that wa* foreign Ui the
bodv of the bill.
■fhi* is the cane to which the Senator
from Massachusetts |Mr. Hoarl referred
in his argument of the 20th of March, in
reference to legislation on appropriation
bills. But see the result. Only a few
month* earlier foreigners had been dis
qualified by act of Parliament from bold- I
ing high office. William til died ;
Anne succeeded, and in the same year,
1702, the Tory Common# voted her an
annual allowance of £lOO.OOO, that is,
lacking to the bill an "amendment"
S residing for the retention of Princo ;
eorge of Denmark, (the Queen's bus
hand,) in his office of lord admiral and
general issmo of the forces, the actual
commander being Merlborough. The
Lord# -they were Tories too—made a
stand, but in the end gave way, not
withstanding their solemn "resolve"
which was hardly six months old, and
that seems to have been the last at
tempt to limit the Common* in shaping
hills.
Mr. tfoAB. Will the Senator from
Pennsylvania state what he mean* by
the Common* of England making an
ameodment to a money ball 7
Mr. WALLACE. They placed upon that
bill a provision that was foreign to the
body of the bill and whioh had nothing
[Continued an 4<A /"V" ]
■