Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-04-16

his hand was the representative of forty
millions of people. We propose to restore
to the civil power its absolute control over
the military power. We propose to restore
to the American people their own system.
We neither seek to coerce the executive nor
submit to be coerced by it. 1t is the right of
legislative power to raise and support armies,
to make rules and to enact laws, and we fol-
low our plain duty. This bill votes the paw
OF troops. Cannot the law making the
power say how they should be employed?
we violate no provision of the constitution.
No one pretends we do. We act within the
scope OF our power as we judge our duty
calls US. -Four propositio Ms can be affirmed:
First, the right to place legislation for the pro-
lection OF the rights of the people upon money
bills belongs to the legislative power and
cannot be denied by any other branch of
the government. We are the judges of our
powers and duties in this regard. Our
Judgment cannot be impugned by the
executive or judiciary. They may criticise
subject matter, but not the form.
Second-This right is sanctioned by the
practice of Congress for many years. The
revised statutes under the head of general
and permanent statutes affecting the army
contain 268 sections. OF these 90 came
directly from the appropriation act.
Thlrd-It is sustained by precedent as old
as the time of Charles the First. and no
power dreams of denying its possession
by the commons.
Fourth 1.-The legislation proposed is con-
stitutional and necessary, and violates no
right of any branch of the federal govern
ment. We have no right to assume that any
feature of the bill will meet disapproval any
where. The bill makes no threat to deny
supplies. Let us look at this subject of CO.
ercion. The President, Senate and House
are Independent in their sphere. Each pos
sesses negative upon the other. The SEN
ate and House each has an absolute veto up
on the other, while that OF the executive is
limited. If the Senate refuses to pass
Aouse bill because of Objectionable matter,
and makes its removal condition of its
passage it coerces the House to that extent.
1t has this right. 1t is not revolutionary.
1t exercises its constitutional right to judge
of the measure. This right is vital; the
check invaluable. The same is true of the
executive negative upon the legisla-
tive power of enactment. The legis-
.ative branch may decline to act.
It has this right or it has no independence
of action. It alone for itself must Judge of
the fitness, necessity, and constitutionality
of the measure proposed. It cannot coerce
the executive, nor can the executive coerce
it. Each is responsible to the people for its
| conclusions and actions, and must act in full
view of that tribunal. If the legislative
branch could be coerced to act in this mode,
the will of the majority would be controlled
by the minority, the patronage of an I'M
scrupulous President and minority could
dictate legislation. No such purpose is in
tended by the constitutional negative. The
defensive power of non-action Is the protec-
ton of the liberty of the people. Mr.. Clay,
in 1917, expressly asserted the right of nom
action by legislative power. It has
limits to its use. As an
appeal to the people, its power for
the destruction of unconstitutional or hasty
legislation is invaluable; but it was never in
tended or used to keep yoke on the people
or prevent the repeal of statute. It was
never intended and never used to deprive the
| people of free elections or to strike down
rights of free people. When it is used for
such purpose the people will correct the
wrong. This legislation places check on
the military power. That duty is placed
upon us in the interest of the people. We
must restore the original principles from
which four years of war have diverted the
| government; bring the military to strict sub
ordination to the civil power; permit free
system of laws to be based upon free ballot
and expunge standing menace upon free
institutions. Mr.. Wallace, in the course of
his remarks, asked whether the Senator from
Maine or any other Senators would
deny the right to restore to the people their
own system of free elections? Would the
senator deny that it belonged to the people?
| If not, why not restore it? The senator
! fp0rN 6oSv, fhnpo
and you have not been interfered with; but
there is a law which gives the President
power to interfere at elections. Nobody
| contends that partisan control is right. The
| senator from Maine said this bill was the
dictate of a Democratic caucus, but he
| (Wallace) asserted that no caucus ever saw
this bill. It was the production of the
house committee on appropriations.
Mr.. Blaine, interrupting, said the adj
mission came from the senator from Ken
lucky (Beck), that committee of the
Democratic caucus was preparing these
measures It was an issue of fact between
the Senator from Pennsylvania and the
Senator from Kentucky. Blaine read from
the Congressional Record in support OF his
assertion.
Mr.. Wallace, resuming, repeated that no
Democratic caucus ever saw the pending
bill, and, in conclusion, repeated that the
only object was to restore to the people The
right of which they have been deprived.
Mr.. Logan obtained the floor, but gave
way to Ferry, who moved the Senate proceed
to the consideration of executive business.
Mr., Davis, of West Virginia, thought the
Senate might remain in open session an hou1
longer. If any Senator was ready to speak
on the pending bill let him do so. If not
let the Senate vote. The senate, by vote o.
36 to II, went into executive session, and
when the doors were rsopened adjourned.