The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-26


On the Legislative appropriation bill.
Mr. Money, of Mississippi insisted upon the
justice Of the proposed repeal of the election
laws.
Mr. Goode, Of Virginia, said be would dis
rllsH the question entirely upon Its merits
IIe would not anticipate the action OF the
President, md bio Thought 1t iifssetnly atld
improper fnf either side to make threats OF
what would be done In the event Of the ae-
tion Of the legislative branch, no matter what
The action might be. The people would maj
~ determine which WAS right. He Then ar
gned In favor OF the repeal Of the test oath
and election laws. Mr.. Goode said, IN con-
clusion. that he was willing to submit this
whole question to the grand Inquest of the
people. which must finally pass upon IT,. 3,
i Mr. Hiacoek of New York. addressed the
committees and argued that the whole purpose
of this Legislation was to strike down the bar
riers which surrounded the ballot-box II New
Il York and elsewhere against Illegal voting. ).
il Mr.. MeGook, Ut New York, sent up and had
read the resolutions Of the Legislature OF
New York opposing this legislation and then
argued against the proposed channges.. ne
reviewed the history of politics In New YORK
dnrinRsthe last election, and argued that the
Democratic matorlties we're reduced because
the people were disgnsted with tho party.
j Mr. Ellis, Of Louisiana, being next. reeog..
nized. started out with the proposition that
the issues of tho war were over aud the peo-
pie Ut the South had accepted the result. No
States had suffered more than Louisiana and
South Carolina, and yet IN the constitutional
convention of the former State,one OF the. first
resolutions adopted was ono which declared
b recognition Ut tho thirteenth. fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments to the constitution
He then reviewed the history OF military III
terfersnce in Louisiana under color q these e, {,
been perpetrAted under them. Mr.. Ellis
argued that the laws which 1t was proposed
/ to repeal. were ID conflict with the United
States constitution. He denied that to vote
was n right. 1t was mere privilege,
and therefpreit was for the states to determine
who should vote. He then referred to the
history of the colored people since the war
and argued that Republican rule had been the
worst enemy Of tho eol0red people. He
alluded particularly to the swlndle perpe-
, tratrd BY the Freedmen's bank. In coneln-
sion he declared that tho South was loyal
j, 10 The whole country. and that she would
shrink from no responsibility or demand on
her to preserve The integrity IT the Union.
Mr.. Kelfer, Of Ohio argnedaHainst the pre-
i posed legislation. The repeal would counten-
ance violnncs and disorder on election day, for
/ not only Ii the employment OF troops prohi-
: taken away by this legislation.
ii Mr. Springer, OF Illinois, In brief speech
: denied that this Legislation was q rider In the
true SENSE. The House has only In this mat
be put, and that 1t had d perfect right to do 80.
81 Mr. Ewing, Of Ohio, said the question
+ at issue IN this bill had given rise
/ to expressions Of sectional hatred,s that
the trial and condemnation Of vicious
! legislation. for which the Republican
b party should DO driven from power. These
! sections were no part Of the war measures,
! but were mere party Legislation, invented by
y that party to hold itself In power. He yield
3 ed to no man In his desire to preserve and
defend MI the results Of the war; but as q
t Union soldier, proud Of his. service, he de-
no need these sections which It was proposed
!. 70 repeal as black spot on the body polite.
/ At this point a 80 .. m1 Mr.. Ewing was
b interrupted by message from the Senate,
i announcing the passage OF the army appro-
priation bill, without amendment. which was
j received with applause on the Democratic
side.
+ Mr.. Garfield-He laughs best who laughs
j last. Applause on the Republican side.l
j Mr.. Ewing, resuming, said II no knew the
purposes Of those with whom he bore arms;
/ II be knew anything OF the purposes Of that
d million Of men who, like hts colleague. War
! ner, and himself; went from the Republican
! million Of men who. like his colleagues LIE.
= tevre and Finley, went from the, Demo-
cratic party into that army, they are
q not legialating now for mere party
gain. Two short months ago his
! distinguished colleague from Ohio Clarified
J. thrilled this House and the country by the
declaration that the time had come for sec
Z, tional hate and strife to cease aud that nc
man could gain power by further protracting
% It, At the very close OF the last session his
i: colleague declared his willingness TO vote foi
It the repeal OF laws authorizing troops ait the
y polls and for the repeal Of the jurors tes'
T. oath just as these clauses were now offered II
4, this appropriation bill.
Mr.. Garfield Nnterrupting) denied that hi
10 had ever said that he WAS ever In favor OF tht
repeal as It was proposed. What he did Say
d was, that he WAS wiling to repeal the laws o
Is 1865 upon this subject, but he was not In favo
t. OF the proposed modification Of the law, which
ii makes 1t infinitely worse than 1t s ut present
it Mr. Ewing quoted from Mr.. Garfieldi
d speech wherein he said he was Iii favor of tn.
repeal, and WAS willing to give up indepen
T. dent legislation on the army bill.
., Mr. Garfield inquired whether, Ii the Re
7, pnblcans were Wiling to give up Legislation
y on the army bill, the Democrats would givt
y up legislation Oh this bill2
Z Mr.. Ewing said that then his colleague was
4 willing to put on this repeal, but in less thar
= exactly was met by his colleague with The
i argument that 1t was renewal Of the civi
y war, and he pointed back to the opening o
!. the civil war In 1861 aud the rebellious atti
i tlde Ut the Democrats, and said practically
: You 70 back now to renew the war, ant
i starye the government to death by putting
= on these provisions hat month ago Iarguet
2 to put on" What Is there to justify this Sc
j rious and tremendous charge OF revolutionary
: purpose and intention on the part Of TIM
: Democratic party In both houses OF Con
i gress? We're there any changes In that month
+ which passed between the time when thu
gentleman asscnted to this legislation and
4 the time when he denounced 1t as revolutions
Z ary? None at all. He attempts to hang his
!. change Of position on the pretext that The
Democrats had caucused and would starve
the government to death unless this legisla
on was sos enacted When he took th ~
y bill there was the same determination
: on the part OF the Democrats In Congress as
Y now, but the change was oecasoned by the
r Republicans on the caucus determining that
NJ tAf xtE1ln fhn
i, priation bill. Mr.. Ewing denied that the &C
i tion OF the Democrats was revolutionary
The whole question about which we went to
9 war was settled by that tribunal to which the
Q South appealed. That settlement has been ac.
!. cepted IN the South everywhere and by every
. body. IApplausel On the Democratic side
q no intelligent man who thinks for a moment
Z questions the absolute fnality Of that decis-
! ion The amendments which have been en-
j grated in our constitution for ten years past
o are accepted absolutely by the South