Daily globe., 1879-06-21
would have made it the
duty of Congress to appropriate
money to carry into effect the alien and sedition

| would have made it the
duty Of Congress to appropriate
money to carry into effect the alien and sedition
law, the fugitive slave law. if slavery still ex'
isted and that law was in force. 1t would re-
quire Congress to make appropriations to carry
| into effect the most detrimental or unconstitu-
| tional law that was ever enacted, if that law
| had not been repealed. Such principle never
obtained in this or any other government
| that had q legislative body that made an ap-
preparation. would like to know how am
| bound to regard law as constitutional because
| some former Congress enacted that law. Take
| these election laws. l was never clearer in my
life than upon the proposition that those laws
| are unconstitutional, and am to be
! foresworn by voting money to carry them
| particeps criminis. No. sir, a law is passed. It
| is bad one, an unconstitutional law, and sub
sequent Congresses may be unable to repeal it.
Congress has an absolute right to use all the
powers the constitution confers upon it upon
the question whether the law shall be executed
or not, and if it cannot be executed without
appropriating the people money then the men
who thinks it unconstitutional, and votes the
peoples money to execute it, is perjured
man, and nothing less. Nothing is clearer
than that if a majority of Congress are op-
posed to law and cannot repeal it, yet they
are are: not bound to vote the money Of the people
which is In their keeping to execute that law
which they believe to be unconstitutional.
will 20 further and say, if they believe law
to be impolitic, they have that right.
Senator Blaine-Then citizen, by the same
reasoning, is not bound to obey law.
Senator Thurman-The Senator from Maine
would not make his living as lawyer, or he
would not ask me. such a question. What is
this body? Is Congress bound by decisions of
former Congress as to what is constitutional
and If law is unconstitutional are we to
stultify ourselves and become particepS crinainis
by voting money to execute it? @
But there is another idea started here and
that is if an appropriation bill does not appro-
pirate money for everything it ought to be
vetoed or voted down. Is there in that bill an
appropriation that is Objectionable or not pur.
suant to the constitution? No man will
say so. Who then has right TO vote against
the bill, much less to veto it because
it does not appropriate for something else.
Suppose it did not appropriate for the ordnance
department at all. Certainly it is our duty to
appropriate for that department.. We would
justify any person in voting against the bill or
vetoing it. What right would anybody have
to sly that in due time and according to our
Judgment, we would not appropriate for it.
This bill does not appropriate for troops to be
used as police force at the polls. Put any
construction you please on the language. It is
failure to appropriate for the army when
used for particular purpose, just the Re-
publicans said they would not appropriate for
the army if it were out in Kansas many
years ago. It is simply a failure to
appropriate t .repeals no law, and no
cause it does not appropriate for a specific
purpose. IF other appropriations in the bill
are right it is our duty to appropriate money to
support the government. great many peo-
pie think the army not Necessary part of the
government. If they refused to appropriate
for it they would merely be giving effect to
their constitutional opinion It is not a neces-
policy or judgment whether it shallbe retained.
But we do not refuse to appropriate for it. The
idea that Congress is obliged to support every
bad, oppressive, impolitie or unconstitutional
law is harder blow at this government than
has ever been dealt it. 1t is to
weaken the constitutional power of Congress,
so that it is hardly worth having. will vote
against any am mendment without any regard TO
its merit. I do not propose to send this bill
back to the other end of the capitol after last
nights experience, if I can help it. do not
passage of this bill.
Senator Blaine asked Thurman if he be-
Geved he was justified in voting against en-
forcing a law merely because he thought it was
unconstitutional. - * -ar
Senator Thurman said yes, and that he would
perjure himself otherwise.
Senator Blaine said a law was constitutional
until the supreme court declared it otherwise.
decision of the supreme court, but would still
be responsible to his own conscience in a mat
ter like this.
After running debate on the subject Sena-
tor Conkling made few remarks. He pre-
dicted that the vote on the bill would show
effects of Thurman's decision not to accept
any 4 amendment That Senator haG evidently
been said against the bill to-day. 1t was the
caucus that did it. He went on to intimate
that the bill was gotten through the House
without serious opposition on the idea that
there was nothing in it but a prohibition to use
the army as police. It was thought the four
word words .as police oil force would make place
approve the bill. How much of a compliment
to the intelligence Of the executive and his
constitutional advisers this expression was he
would not venture to say. When it was known
| that amendments would be offered in the Sen.
ate it became evident that nobody could go to
| the President and say, This language doesu't
mean to nullify existing law because it was
only to prevent the use of an army as a police
| force" this hedging was resorted to by Thur
man in the hope that he might convince the
| executive that although the amendments in
| tended to define the meaning of the bill were
rejected, still they were rejected on account Of
1
amendments no matter what was their merits
| Senator Blaine temporarily withdrew hi.
amendment offered some days ago. in order tt
allow vote to be taken on Conkllng's pending
amendment namely, at the ending of section
81. the prohibitory clause, add the words ''ex
| cept in aid of the civil authorities" Rejected
yeas Is, nays 49,
amendment: Strike out the words las a. an,
insert instead of an ordinary CIVIL SO tha
the clause would read, ''to be used instead o
an ordinary civil police force to keep tn
peace etc. Rejected l6, nays 2s
Senator Conkling offered the following
amendment. At the end of section five inser
the words provided nothing herein shall b
construed to affect the right of employing par
of the army to execute the laws in such case
and under such circumstances as such employ
ment OF force may be expressly authorized BY
the constitution or by act of Congress-" This
the language Of the posse comitatus clause 0
the act OF 1878. Rejected, yeas IA, nays 27.
! ing to section the following words. 'spro
vided that nothing in this section shall be con
strued to affect the power of the President
employ such parts of the land and naval force
sary to enforce faithful execution of the Law
of the United States, OF to suppress such r.
belllon in whatever State or territory therec
where the laws Of the United States may b
forcibly opposed or the execution therec
forcibly obstrncted.:' This is the acts of Coz
gress, 1892 1795 and 1907, standing in g. 29S, II
vised statutes. Rejected, yeas 16, nays 3O.,
He also moved to add to the section stexcet
when necessary in aid of tho civil authorities
and then only upon application of the civ
authorities" Rejected, yeas IS, nays 20.
Senator Blaine offered his amendment I
punish any person approaching the polls ca
rying deadly weapons, openly or concealed
Rejected, Is to 80.
Senator Window offered the followin
amendment: At the end of section five ad