Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1879-06-12
two States. For this action, wise and patriot
ic as am sure that history will record it. I for


ic as am sure that history will record it, for
one am grateful And while in the honest and
necessary party differences which must arise
in free country it will be my duty, with all
the energy and ability possess, to oppose the
partisan policy Of which he is the representa-
tive, my opposition shall not be captious. Nor
shall I, by bitter and acrimonious censure,
drive him into dependence on those who would,
in their selfish rush for power, trample on him
and on us. trust, therefore, in what have
to say, that shall be able to speak with truth
and soberness.
What, then, let me ask again, are the issues
before the country upon which any action OF
ours can be called revolutionary and treasona-
BILE? If the repeating acts which have been
suggested were passed to-day, we should simply
country has lived and moved and had it's being
for seventy-fve years of it's existence. Can
such a restoration be revolution or treason
Surely not, unless the intervening war has so
changed our relations tO each other that the
old constitutional legislation is no longer ap-
plicable to our condition; and yet this is really
what Senators on the other side would have
the country believe. Task, in all candor, would
such legislation as we now seek to repeal have
been conceived or defended by any statesman
before the late WARP Would any President,
from 1889 to 1861, ever have dreamed Of send
ing an army of the United States to keep the
peace at the polls, or Of appointing Federal
supervisors and marshals to superintend the
popular ballot? If not, then the necessity for
the maintenance of this legislation arises from
something new in the. relations Of the States
to the Union. Will any Senator point out
what that new element is? If any exists, what
is the difference i'm the relations State holds
to the Union to-day and those Of the same
State before the war? If there is none, and
venture to say that none can be pointed out,
wherein consists the necessity for such legisla-
tion to-day which did not exist then? This
question should, I think, be fairly answered,
because it is the point upon which the accusa-
tions against the South rest. If all that we
ask is what existed for three-quarters of CEN
tury Of our existence, how can it be reyolu-
tionary or reasonable to make this demand?
If the democratic doctrine that Federal troops
cannot lawfully be used at the polls, or cannot
interfere in State matters unless specially re-
quested to do so by the constituted authorities
of a State be a heresy, we have the strongest
republican authority to sustain that heresy.
vania, in January, 1871, Governor John w.
Geary used the following language:
The employment OF troops OF the United States
State governments, has recently received consid-
erabe attention and apprehension. Under
any circums ances, in my opinion, 1t Is unsafe
and antagonistic to the principles that should
govern our republican institutions. At the last
October elections, United States troops were sta
toned in Philadelphia for the avowed purpose Of
enforcing the election laws. This was done with
out the consent or even the knowledge Of the
civil authorities of either the city or the State.
and without any expressed desire on the part Of
the citizens, and rs far as can be ascertatned,
without existing necessity.
The democratic party stands to-day where
Governor Geary, staunch republican, stood
then. Nor are we without other and equally
as high republican authority to sustain the po-
Sition taken by our party. Hon. Carl SchurZ,
now distinguished member of the present
Cabinet, in his place on this floor, made this
memorable protest against the scandalous and
unconstitutional use Of Federal soldiery in
louisiana
United States soldiers. with fixed bayonets,
decided the case against them, and took them out
of the legislative hall by force. cannot,
therefore, escape from the deliberate conviction,
conviction conscientiously formed, that the
deed done on the 4th of January, in the State
house of Louisiana, by the military forces of the
United States, constitutes gross and manifest
violation Of the Constitution and laws OF this
Republic; If this can be done in n Loui- SHi
gress, how long will 1t be before 1t can be done
in Massachusetts, and Ohio?
He who in place like ours fails to stop, or even
justiies blow at the fundamental laws OF the
land, makes himself the accomplice Of those who
strike at the life of the Republic and at the liber
ties Of the people.
The present able Secretary of State, Mr..
Evarts, in his great speech on the same subject
in New Y ork, was even more emphatic than
his colleague in the Cabinet, and his words
could we'll be adopted now to formulate the
creed of the democratic party. He used the
following language:
When men vote, and when their chosen off,
GERS meet, and when without violence and with
out demonstration Of insurrection they under
take to conduct the affairs of their political gov
ernmentsno soldiers can interfere.
There are two very distinct firm lines OF limi-
tation, which observed, will protect the machine
ry Of the Government for the people to-day that
is, that the sole intervention OF the Federal pow
er within State authority shall be to suppress
violence and that their office after that shall not
assume to 20 further unless when invited by the
supreme authority Of the State.
What use is 1t to give the purse and the
sword to the House of Commons If the King or
the President by military power can determine
what shall be the constitution of the House Of
Commons or the House Of Congress? ?. And this
is what they fought for In England. And
for this the people Of the United States are
1uSCll0I
er shall dominate over the military, and that no
merging Of them or interference with them shall
be permitted.
Now Mr.. President, shall we be denounced
simply because we plant ourselves, not only
where the fathers of the Republic stood, but
where the great lights of the republican party
have declared the only true constitutional po-
sition can be found. Now, sir, venture to
assert that underlying the whole argument
on the other side are two assumptions: first,
that the war has so developed the independent
existence of the Federal Government as distin-
guished from the States, as to give it greater
power, larger influence, and more direct inter-
est in congressional elections than 1t possessed
before; second, that the Administration, as
the representative of that party which elected
it and in control Of the Federal machinery, is
bound to use that power and influence in the
protection Of these interests. In other words,
that the privileges and prerOgatives Of the
States are to be obliterated, not by force, but
by the subtler though not less destructive in
huences of the two great national parties using
the powers of the Federal government as weap-
ons of party warfare.
Now, do not propose to make any constitu-
tional argument on this subject. 1t is sut1-
cient for me to say that hold the form and
character Of our government to have been un-
altered by the late war, and that the mutual
relations of the General Government and the
several States Of the Union remain precisely
as they were when the union was formed. l
hold that the recent constitutional amendments
have wrought no change in these relations and
in these views. am sustained by the Ian
guage of the Supreme Court Of the United
States in the case Of The Collector Us. Day,
reported in eleventh volume Wallace In this
case, Justice Nelson, in delivering the opinion
of the court, used the following language:
. The General Government and the States, al.
though both exist within the same territorial
limits, are separate and distinct sovereignties,
acting separately and independently Of each 9TH