The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1879-05-01
RAYONETs VS.. BALLOTS.

RAYONETs VS.. BALLOTS.
senator Davis Talks.
On the ed ult. Senator David Davis
of Illinois, made q strong and logical
argument in the Senate on the Army
Appropriation Bill, in which he said !:
1t is no new thing in time of peace
to repeal q law passed in time of war.
Indeed, no wise statesmen will hesi-
tate to do it if the law be unsuitable to
the changed condition of things. 1t
is part OF tho very nature of every
man Of our race to rebel against any
thing which interferes with the free
dom of election, and the days of Re-
public are numbered if the people ever
consent to place the ballot.box under
the protection of the bayonet. But,
Mr.. President, this consent will never
be obtained until they have forgotten
the principles of constitutional liberty
and the precedents set by. the Com
mons of England. Can it be possible
that . principle of common law, q
right of The people to have an election
free from the presence of troops SO
dear to IN Englishman one hundred
years ago. 10 not equally dear to their
descendants at the present day? Mr..
President, it will require some one
now living to write accurately the his
tory of these times, for the future his
torian will be slow to believe that
there was any basis on which to rest
such an inquiry in the Congress of the
United States during the latter part of
the nineteenth century. Why, then,
should not the law Of 1865 be altered
in the manner proposed by this bill
It'll said that President Lincoln signed
1t, and the inference is that 1t would
reflect on his memory to change 1t. To
cay the least, this is pretty strong
presumption from such q predicate.
No man loved Mr.. lincoln better, or
honors his memory more, than do;
nor had any one greater opportunities
to learn the constitution ofhis life and
character and his habits of thought.
He was large-hearted, wiser than those
associated with him, full of sympathy
for struggling humanity, without NAL.
ice, with charity for erring men, loving
his whole country with deep devotion
and intensity, anxious to save It. Be.
lleving as do, that he was raised up
by Providence for the great crisis of
the war Of rebellion, have equal be.
lief that, had he lived, we would have
been spared much of the strife Of these
latter days, and that we would be on
the high road to prosperity. Such q
man, hating all forms of oppression,
and deeply imbued with the principle
that induced the men of. l776 to resist
the stamp tax, would never have will
ingly intruated power to anyone, un-
less war was fragrant, to send troops
to oversee an election.
Why. then. repeat. shnnld not ths
proposed measure pass7 There is no
rebellion, nor any threatened, nor any
domestic uproar anywhere. The Union
is cemented by the blood that was shed
in defense ofits integrity !; the laws are
obeyed, North and South, East and
West, and eur only real differences 70.
late to the administration of the inter-
nal affairs of the Government. By the
construction of the human mind there
will Of necessity be diverse opinions
among the people on the best way to
manage their internal affairs, and Con-
gress meets periodically to legislate
for the people, and to represent their
views on questions dividing them bat
surely these differences, be they great
or email, afford no justification for a
departure from any principles that IN.
derlie Republican Government. If
they do, the charter of our liberties
will soon be frittered. away. The
charge that this is revolutionary legis-
lation has no force. It might be called
. partisan device. Congress- has pow
or under the Constitution to raise and
equip armies, and the House of Rep.
resentatives holds the purse-strings.
In the pending Army Bill nothing is
proposed but to strike out q single
clause forbidding the presence Of
troops at the polls. In no respect is
the authority of the President to an
swer call to repel invasion or to sup
press insufrection in any way abridged
The amendment is german to the bill,
and is simply condition as to the use
of the army which the peoples repre-
sentstives had right to impose. 1t
is not in any proper sense general leg
islation; and if.it were, the statute
books are full of precedents that the
friends of the present measure might
site against their opponents. Whether
the clause in question ought to be re-
pealed, is fair subject for discussion !;
but tho form of presenting it is not
liable to just criticism. Personally, I
should have preferred to vote on the
proposition as an Independent bill, be-
cause the practice Of both parties of
legislating on Appropriation Billie is
more to be honored in the breach than
in the observance. If this course had
been pursued it is probable the whole
debate would have been less aerimo-
niOus, and the excitement which has
followed it could never have been
worked up to go high pitch.
It has been alleged that there is an
attempt to coerce the Executive 10 this
bill. Certainly none appears on the
surface, and he is left entirely free to
exercise his own judgment if 1t should
be sent to him in it's present or in q