Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1879-04-10


tinguished chairman of the committee of
ways and means, fernando cody voted
for it. A distinguished member from Ohio,
now senator FROM that state, (Mr. Pendle.
ton ) voted 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 one
against it.. In this house there were but
few Republicans who voted. against it. l
WIS one of the few. Thaddeus Stevens voted
against it. What was the object of the bill
at that time? It was this: 1t was alleged
by Democrats that, in those days of war,
there was interference with elections in the
border states. There was no charge of in
reference in the states where war did not
exist. But lest there might be some infrac-
ton of the freedom of elections, a large
number of Republicans in congress were
unwilling to give any appearance whatever
of interfering with with the freedom of
elections, and voted against This law as an
expression OF their purpose that the army
should not be improperly used in and about
any election.
Stephens wish to ask the gentleman if
the country is likely to be revolutionized
and the government destroyed by repeating
a law that the gentleman voted against.
Laughter on the Democratic side]
Garfield think not, sir. That is not
the element of revolution that have been
discussing. The proposition now is that
fourteen years have passed fince the war,
and not one petition from any American
citizen has come to US asking that the law
be repealed; not one memorial has found its
way to our desks complaining of the law,
and now the Democratic house of repre-.
sentatives claim that if they are not per
mitted to force on another house and the
executive, against their will and against
their consent, the repeal of law that the
Democrats made, it shall be sufficient
ground for starving this government. That
is the proposition we are here debating.
Wood, Of New York-Before the gentle.
man leaves that part of his discussion, l
make the impression on this house that the
bill introduced by Senator Powell, of Ken.
lucky, which resulted finally in the law of
1865, was the bill that passed the senate and
the house, which he stated that the present
speaker Of the house voted in favor of.
Garfeld-I have not intimated that there
were no amendments-therew were amend
ments.
Wood want to correct the impression.
| deny that SO far as l am personally con
cerned ever voted for the bill except as q
substitute for more pernicious aud OBJ.
jectionable measure. [AppIause on the
Garfield All say is matter of record
What say is that the gentleman voted fol-
that law, and every Democrat in the senate
and in the house who voted at all voted
for it.
Wood want to ask the gentleman
whether, in 1865, at the time of the passing
of this law, the war had really yet subsidized
whether there was not 6 portion OF this
country in condition where it was i'm.
possible to exercise an elective franchise
unless there was some kind of military in.
reference; and whether, at the expiration
of fourteen years after the war has subsidized,
that gentleman is yet prepared to continue
a war measure in a time of profound peace
in the country.
Garfield have no doubt that the patri-
otto gentleman from New York took all
those things into consideration when he
voted for that bill, and l may have been
unpatriotic in voting against it, but he and
l must stand on our record as made up.
Let it be understood that I have not at all
entered into the discussion of the merits OF
the case. l am discussing method OF
revolution against the constitution of the
United States.
I desire to ask the forbearance of the gen
tlemen on the other side for remarks that
dislike to make, for they will bear witness
that have in many ways shown my desire
that the wounds Of the war shall be healed
and the grass that God plants over the
graves of our dead may signalize the return
tween all parts of the country. But an
compelled by the necessity of the situation
! to refer for moment to a chapter of his
tory. The last act of the Democratic domi
nation in this house Is years ago was stirring
and dramatic, but it was heroic and high
souled. Then the Democratic party said
IF you elect your man as president of thu
United States we will shoot your Union to
DEATH" And the people of this country
not willing to be coerced, but believing
they had right to vote for Abraham Lin
coin if they chose, did elect him lawfully al
president, and then your leaders, in control
capitol, did the heroic thing of withdrawing
from their seats, and your representative:
Withdrew from their seats and flung down tt
us the gage of mortal battle. We called it re-
bellion, but we admitted that it was honor
able, that it was courageous, and that it was
| noble to give US the fell gage of battle, and
fight it out in the open field. That conflict
and what follow wed, we all know too we'll
and to-day, after eighteen years, the bool
of your domination is opened where you
turned down your leaves in 1860, and yot
are signalling your return to power b!
reading the second chapter-not this tina
not let you dash statute out of the bool
you will--not shoot the Union is death as il
the first chapter-but sterve it to death b,
refusing the necessary appropriations APP
plause on the Republican side.] You, gen
tlemen, have it in your power to kill thi
government. You have it in your power
by withholding these two bills, to smite tn
nerve centres of our constitution to tn
] stiffness of death; and you have declared
I your purpose to do it if you canDot breal
down the elements of free consent that, VI
to this time, have always ruled in the gov
eminent.
In 1856, in Cincinnati, in the Nationa
Democratic convention, and still later, il
1860. the National Democracy in the Unite,
States affirmed the right of the veto as on
of the sacred rights of eur government, an
declared that any law which could not b
passed over a veto by two.thirds vote ha
, no right to become law, and that the onl
redress was an appeal from the veto to tn
! people at the next election. That has beel
the Democratic doctrine on that subjec
! from the remoteot day-certainly from Gen
Jackson's time until now. What woul'
| you have said in 1861 if the Democrat
| majority in the senate, instead of takin
Cuc COuEb0 "u1Cu IL udu supply bdlu
eve will put an amendment on an appro
priation bill declaring the right of any stat
to secede from the Union at pleasure, an
forbidding any officer of the army or nav
of the United States from interfering witt
any state in its purpose to secede?" Sup
pose that that Democratic majority had sal
then, "Put that on these appropriation
bills, or we will refuse supplies to the gov
eminent" Perhaps they could have kille
the government then by starvation. But il
the madness of that hour, the leaders q
the secession government did not drear
that it would be honorable to put their 6gh
on that ground, but they walked out o
their plain of battle and fought it out. Blu
now, in way which the widest of secel
sionists never dreamed of taking, it is pr
posed to make this new assault on the vital
of the nation.
Gentlemen addressing the Democratic
| side of the housed, we have tried to coun
the cost. We did try t" countit in 1861
before we picked up the gage of battle; an
although no man could then forecast tn
awful loss in blood and treasure, yet, hav
ing started in, we staid there to victory. w
simply made the appeal to our sovereign
to that great omnipotent, public opin
ion, in America--to determine wheth
er the Union should be shot t,
death. And now, lawfully, in on