The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-03-31
GARFIELD SPEAKS.
A Clear Exposition of the Demo.
cratic Programme.
Democratic Tactics Dc cIared Rev
OlNtiOmary
And Threatening the Life Of the Govern
ment.

tue government into three parts, and said that look
ing at the government foreigner might look upon
it, 1t might be said to be the feeblest government on
the earth, while, looking at it American citizens
did, 1t was the mightiest government A foreigner
could point out dozen ways in which the govern
ment could be Killed, and that not by violence. OF
course all governments might be overturned by the
SWORD, but there were some ways by which this gov
eminent nigh. be utterly annihilated without the
fr ng OF gun. The people might say that they
would not elect representatives. That, of course,
was violent supposition, but there no possible
remedy for such condition of things, and without
House of Representatives there could be no sup
port of government and consequently there could
be no government. So the States might say through
their legislatures that they would elect Senator'S
The very abstention from electing Senators would
absolutely destroy the government, and there woDld
be no process of compulsion. Or surprising that The
two houses assembled in their usual ORDER and
that bare majority of one in either house should
firmly bind itself together and say that it would vote
TO adjourn at the moment of meeting each day, and
would do that for two years in succession, In that
case what would happen, and what would be the
measure of redress? The government would die
There could not be found in the whole range of ju-
dicial or executive authority any remedy whatever
At first view it might seem remarkable, he said,
thas body of wise men like those who framed the
constitution should have left the whole side of the
fabric of the government open to those deadly as
saults but, on another view OF the case they were
wise. What was their reliance? 1t was on sovereign
ty of the nation, on the crowned and Amounted SOW
ereign to whom all American citizens owed their al
legiance That sovereign was the body OF the peo-
pie Of the United States, inspired by their love OF
country and their sense of obligation to public duty
IN hon
us There has never been such abstention from the
exercise Of those primary functions of sovereignty as
either to cripple or endanger the government, and
now for the first time in our hstory-and 1 will say,
for the first time in at least for two centuries in the
history Of English speaking peope-has it been pro-
posed or at least insisted upon that these voluntary
powers shall be used tor the destruction of the gov
eminent. want it understood that the proposition
which have read, and which is the programme an
nounced to the American people to-day, is this, that
five cannot have our way in certain manner, we
will destroy the government Of this country by using
the voluntary powr-not of the people, but of our
selves-as ainst the government to destroy it What
is our theory of law? 1t is free That is the
granite foundation of our whole structure Nothinx
In this republic can be law that has not the free
consent of the House, the free consent OF the Senate
and the free consent Of the executive or if the
utive refuses bis free CONSENT then it must have the
free consent of two-thirds ct each body. Will any
BODY deny that; will anybody challenge line of that
statement that free consent is the foundation rock
OF all our Institutions? And yet the prog ANNE
nounced two weeRs ago was that, ii the Senate re-
fused to consent to the demand OF the House. gov
eminent should stop. The proposition was then
and the programme is now, that although there is
not Senate to Veto there is still third independent
factor in the legislative power of the government,
which is to be coerced at the peril of the destruction
of the government. 1t makes no difference what
your issue is. If it the simplest and most in
offensive proposition in the world, yet, if you de-
mand matter of COERCION that it shall be put In
every fair minded Republican in America would be
bound to resist it much as though his life depen-
ded on his resistance.
am not arguing at present as to the merits Of
your three amendments at all. I am speaking of
your methods, and say that they are against the
constitution Of our country. 1 saw that they
revolutionary to the core and that they tend to the
destruction of the first element of American liberty
which is the free consent of all the powers that unite
to make the law. ask anybody to take up my chal-
lenge to show me where hitherto this consent has
been coerced as condition precedent to the support
of the government 1t isa little surprising to me
ehac Jul vi tuo OIutE slue eLlOuU nave gone
into this great contest slender topic as tue
one embraced in this particular bill. Victor Hugo
said in his description Of the great battle of Water
loo that two armies like two mighty giants and
that sometimes chip under the heel of one might
determine the victory. 1t may be. gentlemen. that
there is merely chip under your heel, it may be
that you treated it as chip your shoulders; but,
whether it is under your heel your shoulder, it
represents matter OF revolution, and we fight for
the chip as if it were an ingot of the richest ore
loud applause on the floor and in the galleriesl
Let us see what the chip is. Do the gentlemen know
what they ask when they ask to repeal this meas
ure? Who made this law which you now demand to
have repealed in this bill? 1t was introduced into
the Senate of the United States by prominent
Democrat from the State of Kentucky (Nr. Powel)
1t was Insisted upon in an able and elaborate
speech by him bnt was reported against by Repub-
lean committee in that body; it went through days
and weeks of debate in the Senate, and, when it IL
ually 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 Republican. No Democrat voted
against but every Democratic Senator voed for it
Who were they? Mr.. Hendricks of Indiana, Mr..
Davis of Kentucky, Mr. johnson Of Maryland, Mr..
McDouga of California, Mr.. Powell of Kentucky.
MIR. Richardson of Illinois and MIR. 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 put upon its passage here. And how
did the vote stand in this body? Every Democrat in
the House of Representatives voted for ito of
them. The total number of persons who voted for it
in the House was about 11S, and of that number
ifu trar ha dtcfiDOuicha6
Speaker Of the House, Samuel j. Randall, voted for
it. The distinguished chairman of the committee on
ways and means, Fernando Wood, voted for it. A
member from Ohio, now Senator
from that state. Mr.. Pendleon, 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 against it, In
this House there were but four Republicans who |
voted against it. was one of the few. Tbaddeus |
Stevens voted against it. What the object Of |
The bill at the time? 1t was this: 1t was alleged |
BY Democrats that in those days of war there in
erierenes with elections in the border states There
do charge of any interference in the states where
did not exist. But, lest there might be some in
raction Of the freedom of election large number
If Republicans in Congress who were unwilling to
rive any appearance whatever of interfering with
he freedom of elections voted against this law as an
Expression of their purpose that the army should not
e Improperly used in and about any election.
am compelled by the necessity of the situation to
eter for moment to chapter of history. The last
ct of the Democratic domination in this House
ighteen years ago stirring and dramatic, but it
vas heroic and high-souled. Then the Democratic |
'arty said, eff you elect your man as President of
he United States, we will shoot your Union to
eath, and the people of this country not willing to
re coerced, but believing that they had right to
ote for Abraham Lincoln if they chose, did elect
i'm lawfully President, and then your leaders, in
ontrol of the majority Of the other wing
this Capitol, did the heroic thing in with
rawing from their seats, and your representatives
1i;hdrew from their seats and flung down to us the
age of mortal battle. We called it rebellion, but we
Omitted that it was honorable, that it was courage
us and that iG was noble to give us the full gage of
attic and fight it out in the open field. That con-
let, and what followed, we all know too well, and
oday, after eighteen years, the book your domina
ion is opened where you turned down your leaves
d 1860, and you are signalling your return to power
y reading the second chapter, not this time an
eroc one, that declares that if we do not let you
ash statute out of the book you will not shoot the