The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1879-04-10


not the free consent Of the House, the free
consent Of the Senate, and the free consent
OF the Executive. Or, il the Executive re-
fuses his free consent, then it must have the
free consent of two thirds of each body
Will anybody deny that? Will anybody
challenge line Of the statement-that free
consent is the foundation rock of all our
institutions? And yet the programme an
Senate refused to consent to the demand Of
the House, the Government should stop. The
proposition was then, and the programme
is now, that although there is not Senate
to veto it, there is still third independent
factor In the legislative power of the Govern
ment which Is to be ceerced at the peril
Of the destruction Of the Government.
am not arguing at present as to the mer-
its of your three amendments at all; am
speaking Of your methods, and say that
they are against the Constitution of our
country. 1 say that they are revolutionary
to the core, and that they tend to the des-
truction of the first element Of American
liberty, which is free consent of all the pow
ers that unite to make the law. 1t is little
surprising to me that our friends on the 9TH
er side should have CO me into this great con-
test on SO slender a topic as the one en-
braced in this particular bill. Victor Hugo
said in his description Of the great battle Of
Waterloo, that too armies were like two
mighty giants, and that sometimes a chip
under the heel OF one might determine the
victory. 1t may be, gentlemen, that there
is merely chip under your heel, or it may
shoulders. But whether it is under your
heel or on our shoulder, 1t represents mat
ter of revolution, and we fight for the clip
as if it we're an ingot of the richest ore.-
loud applause on the floor and in the CALLER
ies.1
VOTING AGAINST A DEMOCRATIC MEASURE.
Let US see what the chip is. Do the gen.
tlemen know what they ask, when they ask
US to repeal? Who made this law which you
now demand to have r pealed in this bill ?
It was introduced into the Senate Of the
United States by prominent Democrat
from the State OF Kentucky. [Mr. Powell.l
1t was insisted upon in an able and elaborate
speech by him. 1t was reported against by
a Republican committee in that body. 1t
went through days and weeks of debate in
the Senate, and when it finally came to be
acted upon in that body, this is about the
way the vote ran Every Democrat in the
Senate voted for it, and every Senator who
voted against it was a Republican. No
Democrat voted against it, but every Dem
ocratc Senator voted for it. Who were
they? Mr.. Hendricks, Of Indiana. Mr..
Davis, of Kentucky, Mr.. johnson, Of
Maryland, Mr.. McDougal, of California,
Mr.. Powell of Kentucky. Mr.. Richardson of
Illinois, and Mr.. Salisbury Of Delaware
There were fewer Republican Senators who
voted for it than there were who voted
against it. Thirteen Republican Senators
voted against it, and only ten for it. The
bill then came over to the House and was
vote stand in this body? Every Democrat
in the House Of Representatives voted for it
go of them. The total number OF persons
who voted for it in the House was about 113
and of that number majority were Demo-
Gratis. The distinguished Speaker OF the
House Samuel J. Randall,l voted for it,
The distinguished Chairman of the Commit
tee Of Ways and Means Fernando Wood
voted for it. A distinguished member from
Ohio, now from that State, [Mr. Pendlctonl
voted for it. Every man OF leading name or
fame in the Democratic party, who was then
in the Congress of the United States, voted
for the bill (; and not one against it. In this
House there were but few Republicans who
voted against it. I was one of the few
Thaddeus Stevens voted against it. What
was the object OF the bill at that time 1t
was this !: 1t was alleged by Democrats
that, in those days of war, there was inter-
ference with elections in the border States.
There was no charge of any interference in
the States where war did not exist. But lest
there might be some infraction OF the free
dom OF elections, large number of Repub
iicans in Congress were unwilling to give
ary appearance whatever of interfering with
the freedom of elections, and voted against
this law as an expression of their purpose
that the Army should not be improperly
used 10 and about any election.
Mr.. Stephens-I wish to ask the gentleman
If the country is likely to be revolutionized
and the Government destroyed by repeating
a law that the gentleman voted against
Laughter on the Democratic sde.l
Mr.. Garfield think not, Sir. That is
not the element Of revolution that l have
been discussing. The propos ition now is
that IA years have passed since the war, and
not one petition from any American citizen
has come to us asking that the law be re.
pealed not one memorial has found its way
to our desks complaining CT the law, and
now the Democratic House of Representa-
tives hold that if they are not permitted tc
force on another House and the Executive
against their will and against their consent,
the repeal OF law that the Democrats made
it shall be sufficient ground for starving
this Government. That Is the proposition
we are here debating.
Mr.. Wood Of New York-Before the gen.
tleman leaves that part of this discussion,
desire to ask him whether he wishes to make
the impression on this House that tho bill in.
PRODUCED by Senator Powell, Of Kentucky
which resulted finally in the law of 1865,
was the bill that passed the Senate and the
House, which he stated that the presen,
Speaker Of the House and myself voted liz
favor OF.
Mr.. Garfield have not intimated thai
that there were no amendments there were
amendments.
Mr.. Wood-I want to correct the impress
sion. deny chat so far as am PERSONAL.
concerned ever voted for the bill except a
a substitute for more pernicious and OBJ
jectionable measure. Applause on the Dem
ocratlc side.l
Mr.. Garfield-All say is a matter Of re
cord. What say is that the gentleman