Daily globe., 1879-04-05

where else to get out of the storm7 There is n
guarantee in the present attitude of your party
for the integrity of the nation because you are
inviting these greenback mon here to come IN
VITA you, when, as history vouches, these
schemes of theirs are wrought with imitation,
bankruptcy disaster, national dishonor and
repudiation. We are just as much in earnest
as You are, and l tell you that you are mis-
you are mistaken in your estimates of the
future. In conclusion, gentlemen, if in the
legislation of the past We have done anything
wrong, it has been fromA zeal which I hope
God will pardon for liberty, freedom, justice
and q free ballot cloud applanse.)
Mr.. Tucker spoke at length upon the legal
questions involved, and then in allusion to the
statements from gentlemen on the other side
that they would never yield, said he warned
them that in the conflict between power and
liberty, if power would not yield liberty was
just as firm. (Applause on Democratic side.)
Would his friends from Ohio and Connecticut,
Garfield and Hawley, vote for the proposed ro-
peal as a separate measure?
Mr. Garield-I would vote to repeal these
clauses if brought up separately, but not to
make them as you propose to make them.
MIR. Tucker replied that his friend stood on
law ought to be repealed. but that on account
of the method of its passage the President
ought to veto it. How could that be? What
right had the President to say anything in re-
gard to the method of its passage, if he had no
objection on the score of its merits? The mat
tiers which it was proposed to interfere with
were matters under the peculiar guardianship
OF the House of Representatives.
He remembered the fsrce struggle four years
ago. He remembered those four years with
sorrow. He had believed he was right then,
and if the time was to be passed over he would
do again, upon his honest convictions, what he
did then. But that time had passed away. He
had come back to the Union with an honest
purpose, and no man who knew him would
gainsay the sincerity of his declaration that he
had no purpose in view member of Con-
gress, or as citizen of the United States but
to make the union glorious union among the
nations of the earth. and to make this govern
ment a success for the liberty, prosperity and
independence of its people. The past was dead
and buried. The convictions of the past had
no longer any motive power over his actions,
which now were dictated by what he believed
to be his duty here, and what he believed to be
! the highest interests of his mother common
wealth there (pointing to the South)
If he could map ont the future of this coun-
try, if he could map out that policy which he
believed to be best, he would say ''cling to the
constitution as the only hope of the country"
He would maintain tho power Of the federal
| government in all it's integrity, and he would
preserve the power of the States in all their au-
tonomy and local self-government. He would
preoerve the rights of citizens, protected by the
habeas corpus, give them free trial by jury, and
free ballots. He believed tho government of
| the United States to be the best system of gov
| ernment ever devised by this will Of man, but
in the matter of the power of the government
and the liberty of tho people, he would put
! that power at its minimum and that
| liberty at its maximum, consistent
with the safety of society. He would
have law on the judgment seat, wearing the
crown and ermine, gently and with unmailed
hand, leading forth liberty as his welded wife
He would have the army and navy to be will
ling servitors of liberty, to expel on her call all
| invasions upon his sacred precincts, or to put
down the despotism of icentlous mobs. II
his aspirations and hopes, his dreams and
visions, could be realized, feeling AZ he die
that the sere and yellow leaf was approaching,
that the evening of his life was come to it,
close, he might then with humble reverence
repeat tho prayer, "Now, o Lord, lettest thou
thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes hath
seen the solution of my peoples liberty anc
seen restored the grand and noble sy stem o1
| the constitution of our forefathers.'
During the course of hi4 speech Mr.. Tucke
was frequently interrupted with applause ant
| at its conclusion was warmly congratulated
At this point the general debate closed and
the bill was considered under the five minut
| rule.
Mr.. Garfield said that during the last fou
days fifteen or twenty demolitions Of his argu
| ment of last Saturday had been made in tn
presence of the House and OF the country. Al
of them save one had alleged that he held it t.
be revolutionary to place this legislation on tn
appropriation bill. If they had any particula
pleasure in setting up man Of straw to knoc
him down again, they had enjoyed that pleas
ure They had never claimed that it was eithe
revolutionary or unconstitutional to put
rider on an appropriation bill. No man on tn
Republican side claimed that. The most tha
had been said was that it was considered ba
parliamentary practice. al parties in tn
country had repeatedly said that the gentlema
from Kentucky (Blackburn) had thought tha
he was especially severe in shown
that he (Garfeld) had insisted o
/ the passage of the conference report in 1877:
in an appropriation bill that had rider to it
and had said that it was revolutionary in th
Democratic party to resist it. What he (Gal
feld) had said on that occasion, and what b
said now, was that it was revolutionary in th
gentleman's party to refuse to let an appr,
priation bill be voted on four days. Gentle
, men on that side had said that the Hous
! should not vote on the appropriation bill b.
! cause there was rider on it. He had tried
, prevent that rider being put on but when th
> minority insisted that the House should neve
r act upon it, he had said that it was unparli:
, mentary objection. The Representatives. di
not filibuster to prevent vote on the pendin
} measure. The majority had a righ
g however indecent it might be as matter
l parliamentary practice to put rider on a
e appropriation bill and pass it. When the bi
e was sent to the Senate that body had perfe
e right to pass it, and when it went to the Pres
r dent it was the Presidents constitutional rigl
= signed it then it would be law. But it ";
:, equally the Presidents constitutional right
@ disapprove it. Should he do SO then, unle
It the other side had two-thirds majority in tt
It House and Senate to pass the bill notwit
/, standing the Senates objection, it could n
It be passed without the hattest violation of t.
l. constitution.
: Nobody on the Republican side had broug
d up the question of vote. It had been broug
e up by the proclamation of the Democratic ca
cuses and by the conference committee of t
t. last House, that had written down as thu
is programme that they must bind together the
1t elements of legislation and send them to
sr President; that if he did not approve them
1T Democratic party would not vote supplies
IL the government. You, said he, addressing t
re opposite side), threatened him in advance.
n fore YOU let him have the opportunity to S
le yes or no, you walked into this capitol wi
1T your threats against him. In your high-sour
at ing proclamation you threatened in the ind
70 1t remains to be seen whether in the body
q, your work, and i'll its concluding sentenc
10 your thunder will he as loud as it was in
ly opening chapter. (Applause on the Reput
ne can side.)
re Let not gentlemen say that or any man
cy this floor, have threatened veto. 1t would
Sc indecent to do SO. 1t would be indecent
vs. any one of us even to speak of what the I
ecutive intends, for none of us has the right
ou know that. But you in advance proclaim
he him that if he dared exercise his constitute
as al power you would refuse to vote supplies
st the government. In other words, that J
would starve it to death; and that is the pr
E. ositiou my DISTINGUISHED friend from Yirgir