Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1879-04-17

consent, the repeal of law that the Dem
ocrats made, itshall be sufficient ground
for starving this government. That is
the proposition we are here debating.
Mr.. Wood, of New York-Before the
gentleman leaves that part of the discus
sion, desire to ask him whether he wish
es to make the impression on this House
that the bill introduced by Senator Pow
ell, of Kentucky, which resulted finally
in the law of1865, was the bill that passed
the Senate and the House, for which he
stated the present Speaker of the House
and myself voted?
Mr.. Garfield--I have not intimated that
there were no amendments--there were
amendments.
Mr.. wood want to correct the i'm
preston. I deny that so far as am per-
sonally concerned 1 ever voted for the
bill except as substitute for more per-
nicious and Objectionable measure. ZAP
plause on the Democratic side.l
Mr.. Garfield-All l say is a matter of
record. What say is that the gentleman
voted for the law, and every Democrat in
the Senate and in the House who voted
at all voted for it.
Mr.. Wood want to ask the gentle
man whether, in 1865, at the time of the
passing of this law, the war had really
yet Observation-Disclosures there was not
portion of this country in condition
where it was impossible to exercise an
elective franchise unless there was some
kind of military interference; and wheth-
or 2 fIa Tor, Of
ter the war has subsidized, that gentleman
is yet prepared to continue war meas
ure in a time of profound peace in the
country? la
Mr.. Garfeld-1have no doubt that the
patriotic gentleman from New York took
all those things into consideration when
he voted for that bill, and I may have
been unpatriotic in voting against it, but
he and must stand on our record as
made up. Let it be understood that 1
have not at all entered into the discus
sion of the merits of the case. I am dis
cussing method of revolution against
the Constitution of the United States.
THE PEOPLE NOT CoERcED IN 1860.
desire to ask the forbearance of the
gentleman 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 that the grass that
God planted over the graves of our dead
may signalize the return of the spring of
friendship and peace between all parts of
the country. But I am compelled by the
| necessity of the situation to refer for
moments to chapter of history. The last
act of the Democratic domination in this
House eighteen years ago was stirring and
dramatic, but it was heroic. and high
souled. Then the Democratic party said
'EIf you elect your man President of the
| United States we will shoot your Union
to DEATH And the people of this coun-
try, not willing to be coerced, but be-
| lieving they had right to vote for Abra-
HON Lincoln if they chose, did elect him
lawfully as President, and then your
| leaders, in control of the majority of the
other wing of this Capitol, did the heroic
thing of Withdrawing from their seats
and flung down to US the gage of mortal
battle. We call it rebellion, but we ad-
mitted that it was honorable, 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
followed, we all know too well; and to-
day, after eighteen years, the book of
your domination is opened where you
turned down your leaves in 1850, and
| you are signalling your return to power
| by reading the second chapter (not this
time an heroic one) that declares that if
we do not let yon dash statute out of
the book you will-not shoot the Union
| to death as in the first chapter-but
/ starve it to death by refusing the neces-
sary appropriations. Applause on the
Republican side.l You, gentlemen, have
it in your power to kill this movement.
You have it in your power, by withhold
ing these two bills, to smite the nerve
centers of our Constitution to the still
ness of death; and you have declared
your purpose to do it if you cannot break
down the elements of free consent that,
up to this time, have always ruled in the
/ government.
LESS HONORABLE THAN THE SECESSION PLAN.
In 1856, in Cincinnati, in the National
Conv ention, and still later, in 1850, the
National Democracy in the United States
affirmed the right of the veto as one of
the sacred rights of our government, and
declared that any law which could not be
passed over a veto by a two-thirds vote
had no right to become law, and that
the only redress was an appeal from the
veto to the people at the next election.
That has been the Democratic doctrine on
that subject from the remotest day-cer-
tainly from Gen. Jackson's s time until
now. What would you have said in 1861
if the Democratic majority in the Senate,
instead of taking the course which it did,
had simply said, 'We will put an amend
ment on an appropriation bill declaring
the right of any State to secede from the
Union at pleasure, and forbidding any
officer of the army or navy of the United
States from interfering with any State
in its purpose to secede?" Suppose that
that Democratic majority had said then,
''Put that on theappropriation bill, OF
we will refuse supplies to the govern
l ment." Perhaps they could have killed
the government then by starvation. But
t in the madness of that hour, the leaders
d of the secession government did not dream
:, that it would be honorable to put theil
fight on that ground, but they walked
e out on their plan of battle and fought il
e out. But now, in a way which the wild
It est of secessionists never dreamed of TAX
: ing, it is proposed to make this assault on
n the vitals of the nation.
= Gentlemen addressing the Democratic
h side of the Housel, we have tried to coun
1t the cost. We did try to count it in 1861
r before we picked up the gage of battle
l- and although no man could then forecas