The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1869-01-28
Fear of TyleriZatiOn.

Forty-six Republicans voted against
the bill for the repeal of the Civil-Tenure
law, when the vote was taken in the
House, and all the Democratic members
present voted for the BILL The matter is
delayed in the Senate, and a. the New
York Tribune and several other promi-
nent Radical newspapers have spoken
very earnestly. and even bitterly, against
the repeal, the bill will probably meet a
strong opposition in the upper branch of
Congress. The committee which Origi-
mated the Civil Tenure law was composed
of Senators Edmunds, of Vermont
Williams, of Oregon, Patterson Of New
Hampshire. and Buckalew, of Pennsylva-
MIA. There is a rumor that the Radicals
of the committee will vote against the re-
peal Of the law, and Washin gton dis
patches of the 18th said that they would
be sustained by majority of the Senate
The Radicals, in hunting after reasons
to excuse their opposition to the repeal of
the law, say they wish it to stand because
of their apprehension that a Democratic
President may be elected in 1872. Says
MIR. Greeley,ln discussing this question
of repeal: "Tbe Democratic party
gained last fall 30 new members
of Congress, while the Republicans gained
only four, leaving the Democrats a net
gain of twenty-six Congressional Dis
tricts." This "gravitation toward
change" alarms the Radicals, and they
wish to continue any advantage which the
Civil Tenure act may give them over their
opponents. So they say, and they say,
moreover, that this is the reason why they
oppose repeal.
They are not afraid of Grant. They
love him, and respect him, and confide in
him, and are willing to trust him without
pledges or security but they must tie his
hands, that his Democratic successor may
come bound into the Presidential chair.
SO said the forty-six Republican members
House. SO say the Radical newspapers
who are fighting repeal. SO say the Re-
publican Senators who wish to perpetuate
in the Senate the power it has gained by
robbing the President Of the authority
vested in him by the Constitution
In their efforts to excuse themselves to
Grant for opposing repeal, they have
stumbled upon lame and impotent apol
ogy. They will deceive no one with it,
and least of all will blind Grants eyes to
the fact that they lie to him because they
are afraid Of him, and wish to keep him
bound because they distrust him.
Suppose the Senate cannot be changed
in four years go as to give the Democrats
a majority in that body, and thus an
effectual bar be presented to the repeal of
the Civil-Tenure law, although a Demo
cratic President and House might be
elected-of what avail would the law be
under such circumstances? The President
would treat it as nulity Would Dem
Ocratic House of Representatives impeach
him for SO doing? President johnson
took the initiative in trying to get the
question of the law before the Supreme
Court. A Democratic President would
Gust an incumbent and let the elected Rad
ical and his associates test the validity of
the law.
Notwithstanding the rumors that the
Senate will vote against repeal on this
question, and attempt to justify itself by
the shallow reasoning to which we have
referred, it is probable that the GRANTEES
will carry the day. The refusal to repeal
Is declaration of war against Grant.
What is said about advantages which
Democratic President or a Democratic
Congress may reap from repeal, is unadui-
terated nonsense. tits beyond the power
of any writer to SO clothe it and present
it as to make it appear respectable. Every
word written on that side Of the question
has been controlled by fear of Tyleriza-
ton. This fear now haunts the Radical
party continually. and affects it somewhat
as dread of ddiriunl tremens does an in
ebriate.