Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1879-04-04
PR ESS S, FRIDA Y
COerclye LEGISLATION.
THE INV DEMOCRATIC ASSAULT On TIE co
STITUTIoN-GEN. GARrIELD's SPEECH.

been brought upon the country lie declar-
ed that the House had resolved to enter upon
a revolution agains. the Constitution and the
Government and that the consequence of
that resolve if persisted in would be nothing
short OF subyersion Of the Government. lie
sketched the point at issue between the two
Houses at the close of the last Congress, and
read from report of one OF the Senate con-
fcrees, to the effect that the Democratic con-
ferees on the part of the House were deter
mined, unless the action of the House was
concurred in, to refuse making appropria-
tons to carry on the Government. The
question mag be asked why we make any
resistance to propositions which great
many gentlemen have declared of no i'm
portance So far as this side is concerned, |
desire to say This You have chosen adroitly
your line of assault. You have put forward
perhaps the least Objectionable of your meas
ures, but we meet that as one part of your
programme. We reply to it as an order of
battle, and we are as much compelled by the
logic Of the situation to meet you on the
skrmish line as we would be if you were
attacking the entertainments themselves ;
and therefore, on the threshold We desire to
plaul our Case vi tnc general PIuuiluN Oli
which we choose to defend it.
Looking at this Government as foreigner
might look upon it. it might be said to be
the feeblest Government on the earth while
looking at it as American citizens did, it is
the mightiest Government. A foreigner can
point out dozen ways in which the Govern
meat could be killed, and that not by
violence. Suppose a bare majority of one
in either House should firmly bind itself to-
gether and say that it would vote to ad-
jOurn, ID. the moment of meeting each day,
and would do that for two years in success
sion. 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 judicial
or executive authority any remedy whatever.
The power of a member Of the House to vote
was free, and he might vote no on every pro-
position of that kind 1t IL not 50 with the
Executive. The Executive has no power to
destroy the Government. Let the Executive
travel but one inch beyond the line of law,
and there Is the power ct Impeachment {;
but il Congress abstains from its duty there
is no remedy. Free consent is the granite
foundation of our whole structure. Moth
ing 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 Executive re-
fuses his free consent, then 1t must have the
free consent of twO-thirds of each body.
And yet the programme announced two
weeks ago was, that il the Senate refused to
consent to the demand Of the House, the
Government should stop.
am not arguing as 10 the merits OF your
three amendments at all am speaking of
your methods, and ! say that they are
against the Constitution OF our country. |
say that they are revolutionary to the core,
and that they tend to the destruction of the
first element of American liberty, which is
free consent of all the powers that unite to
make the law. Victor Hugo said in his
description of the great battle Of Waterloo,
tina: two armies were 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 a
chip under your heel, or it may be that you
treated it as chip on our shoulders. But
whether it is under your heel or on our
shoulder. il represents Il matter OF reyOlu-
ton, and VIC fight for the chip as il it were
an ingot of the richest ore. Load applause
on the floor and in the galleries
DEMOCRATIC MEASURE.
Let US see what the chip is. DO the
gentlemen know what they ask, when they
ask us to repeal? Who made this law
which you now demand to have repealed in
this bill? twas introduced into the Senate
of the United States by prominent Demo-
crat from the State Of Kentucky Mr..
POWELL. 1t was insisted upon in an able
and elaborate speech by him. 1t was re-
ported against by 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
Democratic Senator voted for it. Who were
they Mr.. Hendricks, Of Indiana Mr. Davis.
Of Kentucky Mr.. johnson, OF MARY land
Mr.. McDougal, of California Mr.. Powell
Of Kentucky Mr.. Richardson. OF Illinois,
and Mr.. salisbury, of Delaware There
were fewer Republicans 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 tine vote stand in this |
body? Every Democrat in the House of |
voted for ito OF them
The total number of persons who voted for it |
in the House was about liz, and of that |
number a majority were Democrats. The |
distinguished Speaker Of the House Samuel
]. Randall voted for it The distinguished |
Chairman of the Committee of Ways and |
Means Fernando Wood voted for it. A
distinguished member from Ohio, now a
Senator from that State Mr. Pendleton
Ioted for it. Every man of leading name or
anne in the Democratic party, who was then
n the Congress of the United States. voted
or the bill l.; and not one against it. In
his House there were but few Repub-
leans who voted against it was
me of the few. Thaddeus Stevens
'oted against it. What was the object
II the bill at that since 1t was this 1t
vas alleged by Democrats that, in those
lays of war, there was interference with
lections in the border States There was
10 charge Of any interference in the States
where war did not exist. But lest there
night be some iniraction Of the freedom of
Elections, a large number of Republicans in
congress were unwilling to give any appear
nee, whatever, OF interfering with the free
ON of elections, and voted against this law
$ an expression OF their purpose that the
Army should not be improperly used IN and
bout any election.
Mr.. Stephens wish to ask the gentle
nan if the country Is likely to be revolution
Led by repeating law that the gentleman
oted against. Laughter on the Democratic
ide.
Mr. Garfield think not, Sir. That is
ot the element of revolution that | have
cen discussing. The proposition now is
hat fourteen years have passed since the
iar, and not one petition from any Ameri-
IN citizen has come to us asking that the
W. be repealed; not one memorial has
,und its way to our desks complaining of
he law, and now the Democratic House of
representatives. hold that if they are not
to force on another House and the
xecutiyc, against their will and against
ieir consent, the repeal of law that the
emocrats made. il shall be sufficient
round for starving this Government That
the proposition We are here debating. ,,
now IT WAS IN 1860. ,
desire to ask the forbearance of the gen /
omen on the other side for remarks that
slike to make, for they will bear witness {
at nave in many ways shown my desire t
at the wounds OF the war shall be healed,
I'd that the grass that God plants over the q
aycs of our dead may sgnalizc the return
the Spring Of friendship and peace be
ieen all parts of the country. Bat am
mpcllcd by the necessity OF the situation
refer for II moment to a chapter Of history. -
lie last act Of the Democratic domination t
this House Is years ago was stirring and st
amatic, but 1t was heroic and high soncd. n
zen the Democratic pirty said, Ill you u
sct your man as President OF the United
atcs We will shoot your Union to death. -
nd the people OF this country. not willing "
be cocrced, but believing thoy had II right !
vote for Abraham Lincoln il they chose 4
! elect hun lawfully rs President, and a
en- your leaders, in control Of the majority a.