The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-21
NEW ORLEANS, FRIDAY, JANUARY 81 1876

house, in the district Of the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr.. Tucker. When gen
tlemen on the other side went out tho
Republican party was maliciously ant
fanatically assailed for prosecuting the
war to a Domination. he was bound te
confess that the Republican party was
quite willing, after the war, to grant
full and free amnesty To all who asked
for It, and 1t was even now proposed tt
give II to those who did not ask for IL
Hc had listened with much interest tht
other day to the speech OF the gentle
man from Massachusetts, Seelye, anc
he could not help but remember that he
had heard that gentleman, in the old
church at Troy, proclaim from the pull
pit that there should be no pardon ex.
cept upon confession and remuneration
OF sin. He was bound to confess, also
that when number Of Southern gen
tlemen went to the jungles of Brazil
where they could enjoy the con.
stitutional privileges OF 1898, that
this terrible Republican party had sent
vessel to bring these misguided men
back from Brazil. In view Of all these
terrible acts OF the Republican party, he
was not surprised that gentlemen on
the other side should denounce them
rs unconstitutional. Irtthc name of the
UC aDDc;tlcu I'd Tile MEM
bcrs to support the bill.
Mr. Stenger, of Pennsylvania, said II e
should not have taken up tho time Of
the House II he was not u Representa-
tive from the State Of Pennsylvania and
IL he did not intend to vote against the
bill. He called attention TO the fact
that an appropriation was asked for a
confessedly bankrupt corporation. In
spite Of the sneers that had been thrown
out from the other side, he could not
help rcmarking that, in his opinion, the
bill was unconstitutional II there was
one principle more firmly settled than
another. it was that all powers. not ex-
pressly delegated, were reserved to the
priations like this was not among the
delegated powers. He was not unmind-
full of the appeals that had been made In
favor OF the bill, and he would
support 1t with pleasure II he could
see his constitutional way clear; nor
was he unmindful of the fact that It was
said that the national honor was in
volved. That cry comes, he thought,
with special weakness from the other
side OF the chamber, on account of their
repeated violations Of constitutional
with u bad grace from the Republican
side, because, when the original bills
were passed, 1t was distinctly understood
that Congress would not be asked to
appropriate money for this purpose.
He was tired of the sneers that were
hurled at the Democrats who had con-
stitutional scruples. These sneers were
not arguments, and the people were
utterly tired of them. We are asked to
pass this bill when Congress has de-
clared that it will not vote money for
subsidies. We are asked to pass 1t when
the people are groaning under u load Of
pass It when States and the people have
refused to contribute to the enterprise.
We are asked to impose new burdens
upon the people, and he should refuse
to impose any additional burdens upon
the people Of the United States.
Mr.. FELTON,, OF Georgia, said that he
believed the Centennial would be q grand
enterprise, In showing the world the in
dustries OF our people, but he wanted to
show one other grand fact, which was
that these enterprises could be carried
on without the aid OF the Government.
If the Government becomes the largest
stakeholder we lose at once the distinc-
tive feature which shows that this Is
purely a republican enterprise. He
therefore opposed this bill on that
ground-if the door was opened to this
every other scheme would come In.
Mr.. Jones (Ky.) said he supported the
measure because he believed in the in
tcrest of peace and amity in the whole
country he considered the South recon
structed, and although against his voice
and vote on many points he abidcd by
It; he differed with Mr.. Tucker in his
constitutional position, and cited John
G. Calhoun, whom he declared the
greatest constitutional expounder the
South ever produced, and Daniel Web
ster. as an advocate OF internal improve
ments.
Mr.. Cook (Ga) said that with him the
present was simply question OF
duty, the Constitution limits the
taxation OF the people to certain
purpose, and the question was whether
this came within that limit. He said
the trouble with the New England men,
and which led to look upon the Consti
tuition as an enigma. was that they did
not like 1t; they had found In it a war
rant for the slave trade when that was
allowed to be carried on, and then had
quoted the Constitution against slavery
in the South. Those who had under
took to show the constitutionality OF the
measure had wandered from the sub
ject like New England carpet Dagger
Mr.. Banks of Massachusetts, said it
was his privilege to be chairman OF the
committee in 1871 that reported the bill
the Centennial Association,
but he declined to report. He had, rs a
member OF the foreign commission,
urged the appropriation for exhibitions
abroad and he did not care to assume
another responsibility. He had, how
ever, favored the bill and voted for 1t
he still advocated the measure as pro-
per. constitutional and an absolute
he separated the corporation
from the exposition. The House
had nothing whatever to do with the
corporation created in 1871.
The question was one brought here by
the present, placing the United States
in the position Of an exhibition.
There was not word in the
bill that did not pertain to
The United States as government,
exhibiting the results Of its administra-
ton and the glories OF our form OF gov
The Congress has authorized |
it, and the President has been directed
TO make an exhibition, and Congress
cannot refuse to sustain it. The history |
If hundred years is to be exhibited by |
he Government and the people in their
own way. He asked If the President
could invite 80 foreign powers to come
lere. and Congress have no right to ap-
Dropriate a dollar for their reception
when they arrived. He admitted the
ability and the learning with which the