Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1869-05-15
That Kentucky Speech.


to be speech delivered by Mr.. Garfeldc be-
fore the convention for the revision of the con-
stitution Of Kentucky, in 1919, as an evidence
''that duplicity and Regeneration are not elc-
ments of his charactcr.' This speech which
was made in Mr.. Garfelde $ younger days,
when to use his own expression he was "unac
quainted with the subtletics ofpolitcal abstrac-
tons, - should not have been uncarhcd by his
friends. 1t comes upon the stage like the
ghost in the play Of Hamlet to rcpro,ch him for
his unlruthiulncss to its noble utt"ranccs. 1t
| is n com plcte rc!utati"n of everything he has
said or ever can say in defence OF Radicalism
and reconstruction. If what he said then was
true. what he says now must be false. Moth
ing could have been more unfortunat for him
than the publication of this youthful effort,
side by side with his late VANCOUVER speech,
rs an evidence that lie - stood in politics then
where he stands now.
The Kentucky speech was, to use his own
language, II - Solemn protest. 'against sectional
restriction Of the elective franchise, or in other
words limiting the representation Of certain
fundamental law. We know not what precise
limitation of the elective franchise was pro-
posed by the resolution before the convention,
but feel confident tha, it was mil,lcr than tn.
reconstruction measures of Congress. What
ever it was, lie said
"Thc doctrine there advocated, il once cngraftcd
upon the fundamental law of the State. is without
limit. ask gentlemen, where is the limit to thi :
course Of procedure; II the convention assembled
here have right tn restrict city population in its
and for the same reason, right to limit the repre-
scntation Of any other section of the State:"
After affirming the truism that one of the
great objects of human government is ito pro-
tect the minority against the encroachmcnts
of the majority" he exclaims that in New
England he was taught
THAT representation and taxation go hand
in hand, that man shosld be called upon to
J support the government which he had no hand
III making He was there taught that the proud priv
ilege Of bearing the name Of american citi;cn
gave him the right to he heard, by himself or rep
sentative, in the Legislative halls"
| How does this dovc-tail with the subtletcs
and scnsclcss distractions of his Vancouver
muddle? How IS his position, that the Ken
tuck, convention had no right to makca fun
dament"l law limiting the representation of
| particular districts, to he rccoucilcd with the
| doctrine which he now advocates, that State
! can in convention abolish its entire constitu-
| ton or with the other horn of the dilemma that
| the Legislative power of the Federal govern
mcnt may in violation o! the Constitution of
the United States, deprive entire States Of Rep
rcScntation.
| Does the reduction of States to Territories
| and the substitution of military for civil gov
crnmcnt, look like carrying CAT the principle
| .'that representation and taxation should 20
hand in hand together? Does the advocacy
ofthis military rule now, look like abiding ny
the sentiment of twenty years ago "that no
man should he called upon to support the tor-
crnmen, which he had no hand in making
Are c to take Mr.. Gartcldc' EXPIRE ,sion in Il c
Kentucky speech that
IF the slavery of the black is to based ulrn the
degradation aud slavery Of the white, then sir, am
prepared to see the institution abolished,
a. simply declaration that he was then in IA
vor of equal franchise and equal representation
to white men? In thu, case, it can not be tor
| turcd into an avowal of the principle which he
now advocates Of hasing the liberty of the
black npoa the degradation of the white race
Or is this to Lc paradcd rs an evidence that
he was at that carly day rcd-monthcd aboli-
ZIONIST, holding the same doctrines upon the
subject of negro equality that he now holds :!
II so, we leave the RcPubican to account for
his appearance in this Territory as n Buch'n-
an Democrat, aud his subsequent adhesion OF
ten or fifteen years to the slavc-holding Dem
ocra,ic party. Regeneration, indeed. is no
word for it, long and crooked as i, Is.