The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-18

should be eligible to jury service. Some Of
the leading Democrats in the Senate at that
time are still prominent men In the party,
and It Is significant that not one of them
raised his voice against the peril to ensue
from such Federal interference.
The latter part of Tellers speech was de-
voted to n discussion Of the alleged interfer-
cnce In the elections Of Louisiana and South
Carolina by the red shirt rifle clubs and
| White Leaguers He gave a synopsis of the
results OF the investigation had by the Sem
ate committee of which he was the chairman,
and among other things explained the man
ner OF voting by tissue ballots.
II At the conclusion of Mr.. Teller'S remarks
Mr.. Conkling asked II the vote could not be
had upon the pending amendment, but on
motion of Mr.. Butler the Senate at o'clock
went into executive session, and Il few minutes
afterwards the doors were opened and the
| Senate adjourned.
The House In the morning hour resumed
consideration OF the bill pending yesterday
silver coin for legal tenders. The question
was pending upon the motion of Mr.. Buck
ner to refer the bill to the Committee on
Banking and Currency.
| Mr.. Stephens argued that the bill was
rightfully referred to the Committee on
| Coinage and that the Banking and Currency
Committee had nothing to do with it. The
bill was plain and simple one, which the
House could act upon and the only purpose
~ I
Ii the gent tlemen had amendments to offer
let them offer them and let the House act
upon them, but do not delay action by a new
| reference.
Mr.. Buckner, of Missouri, chairman Of the
Banking and Currency Committee, said he
was free to say that this bill should pass, but
as matter OF principle he wanted to have
the question settled at the very Threshold of
this Congress, as to the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Coinage and of the Committee
on Banking and Currency. This was a cur
rency bill and belonged to the latter commit
| tee.
| The House refused to refer the bill to
the Committee on Banking and Currency by
a rising vote OF SS yeas to 81 nays. The bill
was then considered by sections Pending
the consideration Of the bill the morning hour
| expired, and the bill went over.
| Mr.. Atkins moved that all general debate
on the legislative bill be closed at o'clock ON
| Tuesday next
Mr.. Garfield moved to make 1t Friday of
next week, and that was agreed to.
4 Pending the consideration of the bill the
morning hour expired, and the bill went over
The House then went into COMMITTEES of the
whole on theTlegislattve bill, aud Mr. Kelley
addressed the committee. In discussing he
political clauses in the Legislative bill, Mr..
Kelley argued that II the President vetoed it
the House would not be justified In overriding
the veto by any other than constitutional
methods. He didn't believe the people, North
or South, would sustain any uUconstitu,ion
actiun.. The people themselves would settle
this matter. and II a veto was wrong they
would send Congress here that would right
that wrong. He denied however, that put
ting riders on an appropriation bill was revo-
lutionary. The gentleman from Ohio Gar
! field whore speech under the title of "Revo-
luton III Congress now lay before him, had
certainly experienced Il change of mind since
h 1872, when he advocated this mode of legisla-
\ tlon.
Mr.. Garfield, interrupting Kelley, denied
that he had ever said that 1t was revolution
ary y to put % rider on an appropriation bill:
gentleman had better take his speech back
| then.
Mr.. Garfield reiterated his denial that he
\ had ever said 1t WAS revolutionary to put q
rider upon au appropriation bill.
Mr.. Kelley said he would let the gentleman
speak for himself, and he read from Garfields
speeches to show that he at one time favored
this sort 81 Legislation and now denounces it
as revolutionary. It Was, nevertheless, Kelley
! said, vicious legislation, and he would like to
| have such an amendment to the constitution
as would prevent the putting of riders upon
the appropriation bills.
/ Mr.. Kelley deprecated the infiammatory
\ speeches which had been made on these ques-
y tions and would have preferred 1t II the dis
cuSsan had been conducted without partisan
passion. The debate was opened anu run in
an iniiammatory way. He did not wish to
they adjourned because OF a veto and
left the lights of our lighthouses 60 out
v on our coasts and neglected to enact necps-
7 sary measures that they would make the
! North al solid rs 1t was from 81 to IS. The
1 North would stand by the constitution as it
stood by it when 1t was necessary to MAIN
tain the lie OF the ration and the unity of
the country nor could the gentlemen depend
upon the solid South in any unconstitutional
movement. The South Is not solid to-day, as
proof OF which he alluded to the fact that
Texas and Alabama had each sent Green
hackers to Congress, and there were other
ttnrY,n h-
cratic caucuses would not be here had it not
been for the Greenback vote. Deprecatng
the political agitation, Judge Kelley paid a
tribute to the Republican party, and argued
the material interests OF the country.
Mr.. Carlisle, of Kentucky, followed and
said he did not propose to discuss the ques-
tion under consideration in q mere partisan
spirit; but 1t might be necessary for him to
state some facts and submit some conclusions
which were not strictly OF a nom partisan
character. AS to the method of this legisa-
ton, it had been frequently adopted by both
parties. He referred to pIecedents, quoting
the assertion that the President would not ap-
prove of this legislation because of it's method.
Mr.. Carlisle said the issue was then squarely
made up, nfrom it the Democrats could not
go Withoast bgracing their constituencies.
The annochcement that the President would
not approve this bill should strengthen them
in the effort they were making. The laws
which we now propose to repeal are so op-
pressive that we are justified in that repeal,
and the President cannot get In the way.
Mr.. Carlisle then referred to the elections In
New York to show he outrages committed
under these laws He entered into consti-
tutional argument to show the right of this
legislation, and combated the IDEAS advanced
by Mr.. Robson in his speech on the army
bill, that the constitution conferred any power
on the Federal government to interfere in or
to regulate the elections in States or to regu-
late the elective franchise
He also referred to the dec's OF the Su-
preme Court, to show that CO ngress could not
impose these duties upon State officers.
What he pleaded for was free and untram-
melled path to the polls He was willing that
the United States should exercise any author
ity to preserve purity Of elections, but he
would not resort to methods outside of the
constitution He dselaimed any intention to
excite partisan feeling, but he would say to
the gentlemen on the other siie not In a