Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1839-05-04
INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS.


hcers in elections, and Mr.. Critienden having of
tered substitute for the whole bill, which differ
ed from it in making the penalty dismission from
office, and IN exempting postmastcrs with a salary
of less than $500 from the operation Of the bill
MIR. PRESTON said: The attention Of Senators,
Mr.. President. having been somewhat divided [
and confused in consequence of the mutifarious
aid important topics which have been introduced |
into this discussion, ! will briefly make state
mcnt Of the case before us, as it has been pre-
sented and as it is now understood, that the va
rious points at issue may again be made for tho |
purpose of giving the discussion definite and
distinct direction the subject really before
The Senator from Kentucky, on his own re-
sponsibility, and as he had right to do, has pre-
sented for the consideration of this body a bill
that BILL in the ordinary course, was referred to
committee, and on that the committee have
made report. Now, TO understand the points
at issue between that gentleman and the com
miltee, and to ascertain the business and precision
OF the proceedings on the question by the com
mittec themselves, it is necessary TO ascertain
both what submitted to them and what they
have reported The bill introduced by the Sen
ator from Kentucky was bill TO prevent the In
reference of certain Federal officers in elections;
and there is statement in its preamble, that its
purpose and object Is to the end that the great
powers of the Executive should not he used in in
reference with the elections, which ought to be
free and lncorrup,; and it therefore to be
i
therein enumerated should not, in any manner
whatsoever, endeavor TO persuade or dissuade
any eector in relation to the vote which he should
give, nor should SAID officers intermeddle in any
of the elections, or use any means with intent to
influence control them. This is the nurnnrf
of the bill of the Senator from kentucky, and 1t
vas the hill clone that referred to the COM
mttee, thus palcing out Of their proper sphere
all reference 10 any subject beyond it, or which
did not bear the merits of the bill. There
IIyeY tuo ,tpfS ,yh. oh tho
mittee might legitimately direct their attention
the first of which related to the general prin-
cples of the bill, and second to the details ac-
cordng to which the mover proposed TO carry
out those principles; and to these two points
their report was, by the nature of the refer
: ence, necessarily confined; and it is entirely
competent in the committee to approve the princi-
pies and ject the details the reverseor
ject them BOTH if they approved the principles,
and were not satisfied with the details, it ne
cessary for them so to fashion the details give
to the principles their due practical efficiency
, These two objects are the main design of such a
: reference; and in the present case the committee
have decided against both the details and the prn
cple.
, And now, sir, I ask, in the first place, have
the committee decided wisely against the princi
: pie Of the bill? What is it? 1t is to proven
! the interference Of certain Federal officers in c
lections-that is the principle; and the object o
the bill is to provide the means for preserv in!
the purity and freedom of elections, which ougt
= to be free and ncorrupt. Against both thes
propositions the committee have reported. The
denounce both the principle and the policy g
the bill, and advise the very opposite of it di:
tinctly and emphatcally; and therefore, if the
E had framed antagonist bill to this, it woul
d have been bill to enforce and encourage tn
II interference of Federal officers the elections
"a TO the end that they may be used to influence tn
70 elections, which ought not to be free and inco
L.,
e two propositions (the princ pie and policy of tf
'e billy deliberately and in terms, and we have
n least declared that we will not assert that the.
IL officers ought not to interfere In elections,
that we will not assert THAT by the EXECUTE,
their Offices and exertions should not be used f
- eectioneering purposes.
Now this, Mr.. President, in ordinary times ar
80 circumstances, would have shocked the publ
'p- mind so much, that the Senate would have il
m mediately revolted at the mere suggestion
Sc propositions monstrous. And yet this stat
: ment not only shows this fact, that the Sena
have negatived the principle and policy of II
VI bill, but am prepared to demonstrate that Il
We converse Of these propositions is argu,
er ana maintained, which is, that it is the bounds
ne duty of the Executive officers to interfere ee
nc tions. and that any restriction upon them is u
constitutional, proscriptive, horrible, and mo
&C strous, and deserving the severest possible
VI CATION By the committee. And now, Mr.. Pre-
as state OF things has been produced, when, inste
of the usual and uniform direction of argume
and defamation against these practices, all
once there is an open and bold avowal that III,
he are not to be controlled, but they vindicate
he and justified, and stimulated by official rhe,ori
re- Heretofore we could not find an argument in
or lation to them in which they were not regard
he as fit subjects of Remuneration. Will gentlem
OF Of the committee deny this? They have decls
ro' cd there has been no such mischief, and th
no even if the practice existed, it would not be
Re- mischief, and that it is not only justi6abe, b
IN. desirable and praiseworihy and such is the la
rd gnage of the report itself. Sir. these are exit
as ordinary propositions; and what has brought
Ia to this INDUSTRIOUS and appalling decision. Sir
We can well understand that in private affairs, a
in a private way, things are done which no m
dare vindicate in public affairs, and all know ii
IL there has in fact been interference in the eli
'n, tons BY public officers. But nss er till now
re, there ever been the open and daring avowal Il