Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1879-04-11


this paftlGuiaf Blll. Victor Hugo said, in his
description Of the great Battle ~ Waterloo,
that two armies were like two mighty gldttfl
and that sometimes a chip under the heel OF
one might determine the victory. IL may be,
gentlemen, that there is merely a chip under
Your litel, Hr IT. may be that YOU treated it as
a chip On your shddld6f. But rhethrr II ls
under your heel or on your shoulder " rspre
sents matter OF revolution, and we fight FOR
the chip as II II were an ingOt of the richest
ore.
let us see what the chip is. Do the gentle
men knd@ What they nelt when they ask us to
repeal! Who made tlii8 law which you now
demand to have repealed In this bill' 1t was
introduced into the Senate OF the Unlttu
States by a prominent Democrat from the
State of Kentucky (Mr. PowelD 1t was in
sisted uprn in an able and elaborate speech by
himi It was reported against by Repub-
1ican committee IN that body. IL Went through
days and weeks Of debate in the Senate, aEd
wien II 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 II was Il
Republican. No Democrat voted against lt
but every Democratic Senator voted for IT,
Who were they! Mr.. Hendricks Of Indiana,
Mr. Davis Of Kentucky, Mr., johnson OF
Maryland, Mr. McDnugal of California, Mr.
Powell Of Kentucky, Mr.. Richardson Of ILL
nuis, and Mr.. salisbury Of Delaware. Thefe
were fewer Republican Senators who voted
for it than there were who voted against it,
Thirteen Republican Senators voted against 1t
and only ten for it,. The bill tlen came over
to the House and was put uptn it's passage
here. And how did the vote stand in tl1is
body! Every Democrat in the House of Rep
resSntatives voted for it-sixty of them
The total number OF persons who voted
for it IN the House was. about one hun
dred and thirteen, aid Of that number a
majority were Democrats. The distin-
guished Speaker of the House, Samuel
J. Randall, voted for it. The distinguished
chairman of the Committee Ot Ways and
Means Fernando Wood, voted for it, A dis
tuguished member from Ohio, now a Sen
ator from that State-Mr Pendletdn-t1ted
for it. Every man Of leading name Or fame
in the Democratic party who was then In the
Congress of the United States voted for the
bill, and not Que against it. In this House
there were but few Republicans who voted
against it. | was one of the few, Thaddeus
Stevens voted against it. What was the OBJ
ieCt of the bill at that time3 1t was this-it
was alleged by the Democrats that in those
days of war there was interference with cleo
| tions in the border States. There was no
charge Of any interference In the States
where war did not exist. But lest there
might be some inffdction Of the freedom of
elections, large number of Republicans in
Congress, unwilling to give any appearance
whatever of interfering with the freedom of
elections, voted against this law as an eX
preston of their purpose that the army should
not be improperly used in and about any cleo
tiun.
Mr. Carlisle (Dem.) Of Kentucky--I want
to ask If the Democrats in tile Senate and
the House did not vote for that proposition
because it came in the form of a substitute
for another proposition still more objection
able to them!
Mr. Garfield, The gentlemen Is quite mis-
taken. The original bill was introduced by
Senator Powell of Kentucky. 1t was amend
| ed by several persons in its course through
the Senate, but the vote | have given Is the
| final vote. A Republican Senator moved to
reconsider It, hoping to kill the propositions
and for four or five days 1t was delayed. 1t
| was again passed, every Democrat voting for
| it. In the House there was no debate, and
| therefore no expression of the reasons why
| ANYBODY voted for it.
Mr.. Stephens. of Georgia. wish to ask the
gentleman If the country ia likely to be reyO-
| fntionizcd and The Government DESTROYED bv
--T--i:-.rs Ia that the uantlnman voted
| againsti
MIR. Garfield think not, sir. That is not
the element of revolution that | have been
discussing. The proposition now is that four
teen years have passed since the war and not
one petition from any American Cltl5en mas
! come to us asking that the law ne repealed !
not one memorial has found It's way to our
desks complaining OF the law, and now the
| Democratic House of Representatives hold
that if they are not permitted to force on an
other House and the Executive, against their
will and their consent, the repeal OF law that
the Democrats made 1t shall be suhhGIent
is the proposition we are here debating.
! Mr.. Wood, (Den) OF New York-Before
| the gentleman leaves that part OF the discus
sion desire to ask hlm whether he wishes
| to make the impression ON tnls mousse that
| the bill introduced by Senator Powell, of Ken
| lucky, which resulted finally in the law OF
| lS65, was the Bill that passed the senate ana
| the House which he stated that the present
| Speaker OF the House and myself voted In
| favor OF!
Mr.. Garlield-l have not lntimated that
| there were no amendments. lhere were
amendments.
Mr.. Wood-I want to correct the impres
| sion. | deny that so far as l am personally
concerned, | ever voted for the bill, except as
| a substitute for a more pcrniCiOus and Obiec.
iectionabie measure.
| Mr. Garfeld-All | say Is a matter o
| record; what say Is tne gentlemen VoJet
for that law, and every Democrat IN the sen
| ate ana House VINO VOCeu al all VOCed IOl IT,
| Mr.. wood want 10 ask tne gentleman
whether, in 1860, at the time OF the passing
of this law, the war had really yet subsidet
whether there was not portion or tfH
country in condition where 1t was impos
siole to exercise an elective franchise unless
there was some kind OF military interference
and whether, at the expiration OF fourteen
years after the war had subsidized that gentle
man is yet prepared to continue war meas
ure in a time of profound peace in the coun
tryt
Mr.. Garheld-l nave no DOUBT thaG TN
patriotic gentleman from New York took al
those things into consideration when hi
voted for that bill, anu | may have been un
patriotic in voting against 1t, but he and
must stand on our record as made up. Let l
be understood that / have not at all entered
into the discussion OF the merits or the case
| am discussing method OF revolution
against the Constitution OF the United states
l desire 10 ask the torbearance OF the gentle
men on the other side Tor remarks that dis
like TO make, for they will bear witness that
have in many ways shown my desire That TN
wounds Of the war shall be healed, and ina
the grass that God plants over the graves o
our dead may sig9ai'He tho retnrn .,., OF IN In
spring OF lrlenusnlp anu peace oetwGgn ii, a. A.,
parts OF thls country Dut uiii co.ll lpciieu S "
the hecesslIS 3l Cnc slSuaI.on W M, relIi Iot
moment 10 chapter on nIstoLy. in0 ~ taSC ~ hG
OF the Deinocratlc auulhisCraClon IN, III Clli i
Ilouse eignteSh yeaIs aso' was was ils n'i'
Irailatle' NV ~ "as loioaO aiiu Ts @
: i