Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1879-04-18

? I
been proposed, or at least insisted
upon, that these voluntary powers
shall be used for the destruction of
the government. l want it under
stood that the proposition which |
have read, and which is the pro-
gramme announced TO the American
people to-day, is this, that if we can
not have our way in a certain man
ner we will destroy the government
of this country by using the volun-
tary 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. Nothing in this republic
can be law that has not the free
consent Of the Senate, and the free
consent of the Executive. 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
challenge a 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 re-
fused 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 not a Senate to veto it, there
is still third independent factor in
the legislative power of the govern
ment which is to be coerced at the
peril of the destruction of the GOV
ernment.
am not arguing at present as to
the merits of your three amendments
at all; l am speaking of your meth
DDS, and l say that they are against
the Constitution of our country. Il
say that they are revolutionary to
the core, and that they tend to the
destruction to the first element of
American liberty, which is the free
consent of all the powers that unite
to make the law. 1t is a little sur
prising 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-
J lar bill. Victor Hugo said in de-
scription of the great battle of Wa
terloO, that two armies were like two
mighty giants, and that sometimes
a chip under the heels of the one
might determine the victory. 1t
may be, gentlemen, that there is
merely chip under your heel, or it
may be that you treated it as achip
on our shoulders. But whether it is |
under your heel or on our shoulder
it represents matter of revolution
and we fight for the chip as if it |
were an ingot of the richest ore.
Loud applause on the floor and upon
the galleries.
VOTING AGAINST DEMOCRATIC
MEASURE.
Let US now see what the chip is.
Do the gentlemen 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 a prominent |
Democrat from the State Of Ken !
lucky. mfr. Powell. 1t was In
sisted upon in an able aud elaborate !
speech by him. 1t was reported |
against by a Republican committee
in that body. 1t went through days |
and weeks debate in the Senate, and
when it finally came to be acted upon
in that body this is about as the vote
ran ); Every Democrat in the Senate
voted for.it, and every Senator who
voted against it was Republican.
No Democrat voted against it, but
every Democratic Senator voted for
it. Who were they? Mr.. Hen
bricks, of Indiana, Mr.. Davis, of
Kentucky, Mr.. Johnson, of Mary
land, Mr.. McDougal, of California,
Mr.. Powell, of Kentucky, Mr.. Rich
ardson, of Illinois, and Mr.. Sauls-
bury, of Delaware. There were few
er 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 Represe n
tatives voted for it-sixty of them.
The total number of persons who
voted for it in the House was about
1IS. and of that number a majority
were Democrats. The distinguished
Speaker of the House samuel J.
Randall voted for it. The distin-
guished Chairman of the Committee
of Ways and Means Fernando
Wood voted for it. A distinguished
member from Ohio, now a Senator
from that State Mr.. Pendleton] i
voted for it. Every man of leading
name and fame in the Democratic /
party who was then in the Congress
of the United States voted for the
bill, and not one against it. In this
House there were but few Republic
ans who voted against it. Twas one
of the few. Thaddeus Stevens voted
against it. What was the object of
the bill at that time? 1t was this:
Il was alleged by the Democrats that
in those days of war there was inter-
ference with elections 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 infraction of the freedom of
elections, large number of Repub-
licans in Congress were unwilling to
give any appearance whatever of in
terfering with the freedom OF cleo
tions, and voted against this law as
an expression of their purpose that
the army should not be improperly
used in and about any election.
Mrs Stephens wish to ask the
gentlemon If the country is likely to
be revolutiOnized and the govern.
meut destroyed by repeating a law
that the gentlemen voted against.
Laughter on the Democratic side.