Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1872-01-12
BY TELEGRAPH
TO THE
Daily Kennebec Journal.
FOrty.SecOnd Congressional Session.
WAsIIINGToS, IL.
SENATE.


SENATE.
In the Senate to-day Mr.. Conkling claimed
vice reform. He sad We are about tt
divorce appointments from patronage ant
favoritism and to try a withdrawal of polit
cal patronage from politics. He argued
against any amendment of the constitution
forbidding reelection to the Presidency. Il
was unnecessary as a means of getting rid o.
peril to which the old appointing system
was open, but which the new system is speciffi
cally designed to remove. We are in the
act Of providing that presidents shall not be
re- elected by bad means, and we are told that
as part of the same act we must provide that
presidents shall not be reelected by good
means. We are roofing out the great alleged
evil OF re-eligbility to a second presidential
term, when we are told we must not leave
re-elgibility standing in the constitution,
even after its alleged evil has been taken
away. We are stripping a thing of the one
objection to it, and are told the thing itself
must not exist after the objection is gone
This seems very odd. Common minds see it
all the other way. 70 me the two things
seem not only distinct, but contradict each
other. If we were engaged in preserving the
present system OF appointments, | could see
the fitness of removing danger, real or sup
posed, belonging to that system, but when we
are bringing in new system, d. not see
the need OF constitutional anathema aimed a,
the departing evils and the abuses bapshei
with the old system and superseded and pre-
vented by the new. 1t would seem not to
require further action, certainly not to re.
qulre action waring on reason in other re-
spects. Proceeding with his argument, the
10 nsto ala
that removals would be only for cause, -
and then forbidding the reelection Of a presi-
dent who has won such public confidence by
four years OF faithful service that he can only
be got rid OF by legal disability. He claim
ed that the pending proposition was simply,
an expedient to prevent the reelection of
President Grant for if adopted it would be
claimed that Grants denomination in the face
of it would be indecorous that if the dogma
is right and SO declared by Congress and the
people, it must not be trampled on. Blu,
why not provide as well against the re-elec-
ton of the Vice President and Senator'S Are
not they as likely II he tempted to abuse their
patronage and power?
MIR. Sumner il rply said, | shall not I'M
dertake row TO follow the Senator in his
elaborate speech, nor at any time shall I'M
dertake any reply to the insinuations he has
SO freely strewn in his path. | lean e him in
the full enjoyment of what he has done in in
Producing this proposition. I simply dis
charged conscientious duty, taking counsel
of experience and following the testimony of
the best minds Of our republic. l have felt
it my duty to give the Senate an opportunity
OF deciding upon the question. l say taking
counsel OF experience, and does not expert
ence confirm the conclusion at which have
arrived? Is it not sustained by authorities
h1 7l,,; l.
himself on the side OF the Senator from New
York, represents to-day what eminent States
man has placed his name or this question
against the name Of Andrew Jackson, Henry
Clay and Benjamin +. Wade? Who is the
Statesman? know him not. do YOU know
him sir: The Senator from New York op-
poses these illustrious characters, but in his
opposition he mistakes the whole foundation
of argument. The object is to guard against
temptation, to see that the president may not
be placed in position where he NAV be
tempted TO use his powers improperly. The
argument of the Senator says LET him be
tempted" Nay, he goes further and saws
the people ought not to be restrained in the
choice OF their chief magistrate. He argues
against restriction. upon people, Sir, that
argument is an assault on the constitutional
liberty. 1t is by restriction on the people as
sured by constitutional law that liberty is
maintained. What is the great object of the
civilized government but liberty, regulated
by law, liberty under the safeguards of the
constitution. The Senators argument would
overthrow the constitution and overthrow the
law where they were restraint upon the peo-
pie! Can the argument find sanction? Is it
not on its face contrary to republican institu-
lions Why sir, one definition of a republic
is government calculated by law to the end
that 1t may be a government not of men but
of law. But the Senator would make it
government of men. l know of no better
indication OF the progress of civilization than
the manner in which men gradually come
within the sphere of law. At first there was
but little law ana the executive power large,
but as civilization increases the executive
power is diminished and the domain of the
law extended. Now sir, my object in prepar-
ing this amendment is to bring the executive
power of the republic within the domain of the
constitutional law to end it, not to fall under
temptation which all experience shows to
be most pernicious. All parties for several
years seem to have been of the opinion that
the great defect in our system at which this
proposition is aimed should be remedied
Such has been the condition of parties gen.
orally IN this government, that it has been
almost hopeless task to engraft the meas
ure upon the c nstltutlon, but now there is
an opportunity and believe every man is sem
sible that correction of this evil ought to be
promptly applied.
On motion of Mr.. Wilson further consider
alton Of the joint resolution was postponed.
At half past three the the Senate went into
executive session and soon after adjourned
till Monday.
HOUSE,.
Mr.. Eames of Rhode Island, pronounced
eulogy on the life and character of Roger
Williams.
Mr.. Banks thought it due to himself and
the State of Massachusetts to traverse some
statements made by Mr.. Eames in reference
to the Punishment of Williams from the col.
ony of Massachusetts. He denied that the
question of soul liberty or religious liberty
had entered into the cause of that baniSh-
ment. The causes were first, that Williams
denied the title of the people to their lands
as desired by grant from the Crown of Eng
land, and held there could be no valid or lust
title to the lands, except it was derived from
the Indians. OF course the Puritans could
not admit the denial of the title to their lands
made in public manner, and which unset
tied the rights not only of the colony but of
indivifuole Williams ho1 olsn oo,o.ol