Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1879-04-17

abstain from the performance of their
duty, there was no remedy. At first view
it might seem remarkable, he said, that a
body of wise men like those who framed
the Constitution should have left the
whole side of the fabric of government
open to such deadly assaults, but on an
other view of the case, they were wise,
what was their reliance? 1t was on the
sovereignty of the nation-on the crowned
and annointed sovereign to whom all
American citizens owed their allegiance.
That sovereign was the body of the peo-
pie of the United States, inspired by their
love of country and their sense of obliga-
ton 70 public duty.
Up to this hour, he said, our sovereign
has never failed us. There had never
been such abstention from the exercise of
those primary functions of sovereignty as
either to cripple or endanger the govern
ment. And now, for the first time in our
history-and will say for the first time
in atleast two centuries in the history of
English speaking people-has it been pro-
posed, or at least insisted upon, that these
voluntary powers shall be used for the
destruction of the government. I want
it understood that the proposition which
| have read, and which is the programme
announced to the American people to-day,
is this: that if we cannot have our way
in certain manner we will destroy the
government of this country by using the
voluntary power, not of the people, but
of ourselves against the government to
destroy it. What is our theory of law?
1t is free consent. That is the granite
foundation of our whole structure. Moth
ing in this republic can be a law that has
not the free consent of the House, the
Senate, and the free consent of the Exec
utive. Or, if the Executive refuses his
free consent, then it must have the free
consent of two-thirds of each body. Will
anybody deny that? Will anybody chal-
lenge line of that statement-that free
consent is the foundation rock of all our
institutions? And yet the programme
announced two weeks ago was, that if the
Senate refused to consent to the demand
of the House, the government should
stop. The proposition was then, and the
programme is now, that although there is
| hOG a W VCGO AGs bLlS1C lS SG1l1
independent factor in the legislative pow
er of the government which is to be CO.
creed at the peril of the destruction of the
government. H
| | am not. arguing at present as to the
merits of your three amendments at all; !;
1 am speaking of your methods, and say
that they are against the Constitution of
our country. l say that they are revolu-
tionary to the core, and that they tend to
the destruction of the first element of
American liberty, which is free consent
of all the powers that unite to make the
law. 1t is little surprising to me that
our friends on the other side should have
gone into this great contest on so slender a
topic as the one embraced in this particu-
lar bill. Victor Hugo said in description
of the great battle of Waterloo, that two
armies were like two mighty giants, and
that sometimes a chip under the heel of
one might determine the victory. It may
be, gentlemen, that there is merely a chip
under your heel, or it may be that you
treated it as a chip on our shoulders. But
whether it is under your heel or on your
shoulder, it represents a matter of revo-
luton, and we fight tor the chip as if it
were an ingot of the richest ore. Loud
applause on the floor and in the galleries.
VOTING AGAINST A DEMOCRATIC MEASURE.
Let us see what the chip is. Do the gem
tlemen know what they ask when they
ask us to repeal? Who made this law
which you now demand to have repealed
in this bill? 1t was introduced into the
/ Senate of the United States by promi-
nent Democrat from the State of Ken
lucky. Mr.. Powell. 1t was insisted upon
in an able an elaborate speech by him. 1t
was reported against by Republican
committee in that body. It went through
days and weeks of debate in the Senate,
and when it finally came to be acted upon
in that body, this is about the way the
vote ran: Every Democrat in the Senate
voted for it, and every Senator who voted
against it was Republican. No Demo-
crat voted against it, but every Democrat
ic Senator voted for it. Who were they /?
1 Mr.. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr.. Davis, of
Kentucky, Mr.. johnson, of Maryland,
Mr.. McDougal, of California, Mr.. Pow
ell, of Kentucky, Mr.. Richardson, of IL
AALlOASS bI4N A1Is Cdu4SOuAyS OI OS4dWdI0s
There were fewer Republican Senators
who voted for it than there were who
voted against it. Thirteen Republican
Senators voted against it, and only ten
for it. The bill then came over to the
House, and was put upon its passage
here. And how did the vote stand in this
body? Every Democrat in the House OF
Representatives voted for it-sixty OF
them. The total number of persons who
voted for it in the House was about 113
and of that number majority wer,
Democrats. The distinguished Speaker
of the House [Samuel j. Randalll voteC
for it. The distinguished Chairman o
the Committee of Ways and Means Fer
nando Wood] voted for it. A distinguishes
member from Ohio, now a Senator from
that State Mr.. Pendletonl voted for it,
Every man of leading fame or name il
the Democratic party who was then il
= the Congress of the United States voteC
for the bill, and not one against it. L
this House there were but few Republi
. cans who voted against it. 1 was one G
: the few. Thaddeus Stevens voted agains
= it. What was the object of the bill q
: that time? 1t was this: It was alIege
:. by Democrats, that in those days of wal
there was interference with elections
the border States. There was no charg
of any interference in the States wher
: war did not exist. But lest there migt
be some infraction of the freedom of eleC
tions, a large number of Republicans
Congress were unwilling to give any al
pearance whatever of interfering wit
% the freedom of elections, and voted again'
= this law as an expression of their pu
: pose that the army should not be in