Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1875-04-07
t4. SPEECH OF
HON. WILLIAM A. WALLACE.
Defirered tn the
United States Senate, March 23d, 1875
I NI ------i--ts ---.i-i--|4. iiN|
on THE LOUISIANA OUTRAcEs.

, ON THE IOUlSiANA ODIWASGs.
The Senate resumed the considera
tion of the resolution submitted by Mr.
Frelinghuyscn on the 10th instant, th,
pending question being on the amend
ment Of Mr.. Anthony. KS.
Mr.. Wallace, OF Pennsylvania said
Mr.. President, the resolution of the
Senator from New Jersey, [AIr. Ere.
llinghuysen, which was introduced into
this body on the 10th OF March, and
which is in these words
Re'oired. That the Senate approve the action
heretofore taken by the President Of the United
States in protecting Louisiana from domestic vi
olcncc, and are Of opinion that he should con-
tnue to recognize in that State the existing State
gOyerLment--
seems to mean n condonation of the
past and n carte blanche for the future.
This resolution was sent to a tribunal
of this body composed of the members
upon the other side Of the Chamber,
and il. remained there until the Goth OF
March following, four days, submitted,
as we must suppose, to the crucible
and test Of caucus heated by party dis
cussion, Whcnitreturns tothis Cham
ber il returns under the auspices of
the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
Anthony and from it is eliminated
immunity for the future, The amend
mcnt proposed by the Senator from
Rhode Island is in these words;
That the action of the President in protecting
the government Of Louisiana, Of which W. r.
Kellogg Is the executive, aud the people of that
State against domestic violence, and IN enforcing
laws Of The United States in that State, is ap-
proved.
What happened in the tribunal to
which this resolution was originally
submitted, as matter of course, we
are unable to determine; but in my
brief experience | have learned to as
certain from those things that are omit
ted IN documents discussed and that
are not stated much that | cannot learn
from those things that are stated
When we seek TO contrast the resolu-
ton Of the 10th of March with the res
olution of the goth of March wo find
that they differ in terms, differ in sub
stance, differ in effect Lot us see--
The resolution of the 10th of March
approved the action of the President
Sin protecting Louisiana = the rcsolu-
tion OF the 10th of March approves the
action of the President in protecting
the government in Louisiana of which
w. 7. Kellogg is the executive r.
Louisiana" is the State. The PROPOSE
tion in the former is general, is vague
the proposition in the latter, however,
is distinct, emphatic, pointed-"in pro-
tccting the government in Louisiana
Of which w. p Kellogg is the exccu-
tive Why tins is, it is not for me to
saT Saf VIEWS Ms %PY 9H Yhhsa hhaySS ysSS@gyt
tion is there. Is it that the latter is
distinct and special because it is the
source of wrongs in the past and the
hope of things in the future is it
that there is hereafter in which "the
State" is to be different from "the gov
ornment of which William p. Kellogg
is executive, or is it q mere difference
in the way Of stating the proposition ?
Again, we find that in the one the
term "torecognize" is used, ,"rccognizein
that State the existing State govern
mont;" J" in the other "to protect the
government The recognition of a
State government implies prc-exist-
ence. 1t implies that there was day
and an hour in which there was a
State government to recognize. The
statement of protection implies tutel-
age, parentage, and care. The one in
dicates that there is a sovereign State,
the other that there is creature of
paternal government. Tho one sug-
gests that there is State knocking at
the doors of the Senate Chamber for
admission here TO her constitutional
representation the other suggests that
Kellogg is simply the representative of
State government that is not the
State, The whole question is begged
in the difference between the rcsolu-
tons. The one is recognition, the
other paternal government and tutcl-
age. Is this the doctrine of the ma
jority in this Chamber Is it the
avowa of their doctrine that We are
to tend toward paternal government
in this country2 II this be so, it is for
us to meet that issue upon the threshold.
We want no paternal government, but
solely and simply the Government that
the Constitution created maintained
and enforced, as il ought to be, by
those who are placed in the places Of
power and trust under that Constitu-
ton
If the power to recognize the State
government or the State itself resides
somewhere else than in the President,
then the term "protect" lisa very proper
term. lfitshall befound on a close ana
lysis of the law, on an examination of
the theory of our Government, that 1t
resides not in the President but in Con
grcss, then the term protect is u
very proper and safe term. "Rccog-
nizc" could not well be used by those
who introduce this resolution If they
hold the viow suggest. In the shad-
owy future that dawns upon us this
distinction may be difference import
ant and vital, for there may be State,
there may be government there that
Louisiana and her people recognize
that will differ from the government
NOW contrOlled bv William II kellopp