The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1879-04-10
THE OBSTRUCT|ONISTS.
Speech Of Hon. George NJ. Robe
SOL, of New Jersey.
Delivered in the National House of
Representatives.

] am very glad, Mr. Chairman, that I have
not consumed any of the time which of right
belonged to the gentleman from Tennessee,
who has just taken his seat [Mr. Houkl The
remarks which he made come with appro-
priateness and force from him, but from our
stand point at the North they would be neither
SO appropriate nor so effective
shall myself consume none of the time for
which I am indebted to the courtesy of this
House in any appeal to feeling or in any sug-
gestion of facts with which am not myself fa-
miliar, but shall confine myself wholly, if pos
sible, to the consideration of the questions of
law which seems to be involved in this dis
cussion.
It seems to have been assumed on the other
side of this Chamber that this is nothing but
the repeal of section of law enacted in 1865
that it is a negative and not an affirmative pro-
vision. Let us see exactly what it is:
That section 2,002 of the Revised Statutes
be amended so as to read as follows:
"'No military or naval officer, or other per-
sen engaged in the civil, military or naval ser
vice of the United States, shall ORDER bring,
keep or have under his authority or control any
troops or armed men at the place where any
general or special election is held in any State,
unless it be necessary to repel the armed enc
mics of the United States :"
This omits the other exception contained in
the original law, cor to keep the peace at the
polls" This then, refers to civil officers and is
an affirmative repeal of the right Of the civil
| officers Of the Government to keep the peace at
the polls. We are not standing here on this
side of the House resisting q proposition to
| take away real or imaginary power of stand
ing army to crush the rights of freemen at the
polls We are resisting an affirmative enact
ment, for the repeal of an exception in re-
| stricting law is itself an affirmative enactment
We are, then, resisting an affirmative enact
mcnt which designs to take away the power
not of the officers of the army alone not of the
officers at all, because they under that law as it
now stands only have power as they may be
ordered or summoned forth by the civil officer
| to whom the peace of his bailiWick is intrusted
What then is intended by this provision? To
restrain the civil officers of the United States
Government from keeping the peace at any
election in any State whether it be a United
States election or not. By what means? By
civil means, not by military means, for the
rights of the civil officer, the Marshal of the
district, if you please, to summon the posse
| comltatus, his right to summon any military
organizations If they be within the body of his
/ bailiWick the right to summon armed troops
to sustain his civil power, is a civil and not a
military right, and is in the interest of the
| inviolability and the strengthening of the law
| against if need be, armed military force Can
that be denied by any lawyer? Can it be con-
troverted by any man?
My friend, the gentleman from Ohio mr.
Hurdl, the other day said the danger of repub-
lies came from military usurpation; that all
that had persisted had fallen by the sword
Well, sir, and, if this be true, how do thev fall
by the sword? They fall by the sword when
the laws are nugatory, when civil rights are de-
MED, when the civil power of the Government
cannot be enforced. This right which we are
now defending is a civil power given to the
officers of the law which should. in time of
peace, be superior to the military power of a
country. 1t is power which may be exercised
in an extreme case to summon the bravehearts
and strong arms of the citizen soldiery of any
section to put down any contempt of an armed
usurplng power to interfere with free elections
This is not fight we are making in behalf Of a
standing army; it is a fghtin behalf of civil
process and the power which must lie behind
it. if it is to be effective.
1t has been also been said Mr. Chairman.
that these laws should be repealed because they
are unconstitutional How are they unconsti-
tutional? | have already stated that the Su-
prene Court declares that the United States
has no voters of its own, none of its own
creation, not that it has no voters but that it
has no voters of its own creation in the
States; and suppose it is upon that point that
gentlemen stand when they say the United
States has and can have no election the peace
of which it can guarantee within the States.
+ 1t has also been said, Mr.. Chairman, and I
4 must be hasty and suggestive only in my re-
marks, for so much of my time has been neces-
sarily taken up in interruptions and properly
consumed that it is almost gone-it has also
been said that this House of Representatives,
/ by the analogy of its nature and power to
that of the English House of Commons,
has the right and the power to put upon an
appropriation bill these clauses I admit they
| baV0 the ta mt thora INIT 40,
not go one step further? I have no right to
speak for any gentleman on the other side of
this chamber. have no right to speak for the
President of the United States, but it has been
given out here in debate; it has been given out
through channels more or less authorized: it
speaks to the common sense of the country
when we see these clauses put upon an appro-
prlation bill, that the gentlemen on. the other
side of the chamber mean to say. to. US and to
the President, Take the whole dose or none; :"
that they mean to say, SPass this affirmati We
repeating clause taking away the powers of
civil officers to keep the peace at the polls, or
do not take the appropriations of the bill We
do not want peace at the polls; take away the
power of the law to enforce peace there or we
shall refuse your suppliesnE #6
1T as argued by my friend from Ohio the
other day that this position was right and
proper, and he said that if this should be done,
there never was case where it was more
called for. Mr.. Chairman, we are here members
of a government under written constitution
which defines and limits the powers of all
branches of the government One branch is
hardly more popular than another We have
neither King nor Lords nor Commons, We
have elements Of popular government co
ordinate under our constitution; three of them
are responsible more or less directly to the
people. The President of the United States
goes to the people every four years to answer
for his conduct and to receive their condem-
nation or TIER approval. This House goes
every two years. Both are popular, both
d represent the people within those coordinate
spheres and those limits which the
constitution has assigned. There is no anal
sogy with INSTRUMENTATION of the English Gov,
eminent, which has monarch with kingly and
royal prerogatives, who represents himself, his
family, his royalty, his prerogative, and his in
heritance, and house of peers which repre-
sents their property their dignity, and their
peerage and the House Of Commons, which
alone is elected by the people and alone is re-
sponsible to them Here all the branches of
our popular government respond to the bid
ding and are dependent On the votes of the peo-
! pie. Our constitution proyidesthat when there