The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-03-27
ruE pRosrRoTIvE CONTEsT.

IHH ~ CCAf
-- ~
There ia good deal of talk to the ef-
feet that Mr.. Hayes has fine chance
now to show his party back bone, and
that he should take advantage of It, The
Republicans say to Hayes that the DEM
ocrats are wickedly trying to coerCe him,
and they beseech Rutherford to stand
firm. In regard TO this matter of coer-
cion the remarks Of Senator Thurman
in the closing moments of the late ss9-
sion are particularly in point:
Then, in regard to the election laws
there is fundamental difference be-
tween the Senator from Massachusetts
and myself. He thinks that these laws
are necessary for the protection of the
citizen in the exercise of his right OF
suffrage. think their practical effect is
to constitute vast bribery fund by which
elections, instead of being purified, are
corrupted, and the money that Corrupts
the voter comes out of the Treasury Of
the people. There is wherein we differ
again. We both agree that there ought
to be pure elections; We both agree that
every citizen ought to have right to
vote according to his own free will and
Judgment; but he regards these laws as
protective of that right; l regard them
as destructive Of that right.
Mr.. President, one word more, My
colleague very forcibly presented his
idea, which / suppose others presented,
that / was advocating a power Of coer.
cion on the part Of the House of Repre-
sentatives. My colleague was pleased
to speak of logic. If a man could be
Judge in his own case, which is forbidden
by the common law as well as by reason,
| should say that whatever poor faculty
l have is faculty of logic and of analy-
sis and exercising it, such as it is, | fail
to see the coercion that is spoken of
Let me try it a moment by test Sup.
pose the House of Representatives pass
an appropriation bill, strictly legitimate,
and the House decides it will not agree
to that amendment, and the Senate says
it will not recede from that amendment
Is there not just as much reason for say
ing that the Senate Coerces the House
on that subject as there is for saying the
House attempts to Coerce the Senate on
the present billP The Senate puts an
amendment on the House bill, and ap-
propriates money for an object for which
the House is unwilling to appropriate
money. The House say: 1--WE will not
make that appropriation" and the SEN
ate say, "We will not pass the bill unless
you do make the appropriation" Does
not the Senate Coerce the House, or at
tempt to coerce it, just as much as the
House does the Senate in this CaseP And
yet who will deny that the Senate might
put that amendment upon the apprOpri-
alton bill? Or take another case, not of
a new appropriation moved by the Sen
ate, but the House passes an apprOpria-
tion bill, and the Senate amends it by
adding to it some provision, as We did
three years ago in the river and harbor
bill, when we provided that only so
much of that money should be expended
as the president" in his discretion
should see fit to expend. 1 do not use
the exact language of the amendment,
but that was its practical effect. Sup.
pose the House hac said, ave will not
submit to this" and the Senate had said,
owe will not recede from the amend
ment," might it not just as well be said
that the Senate sought to coerce the
House?
In respect to the Executive, suppose
both houses of Congress pass an appro-
priation bill, or any other bill, aud it
goes to the Executive for his approval,
and he declines to approve it, he vetoes
both houses of Congress neces-
sarilv surrender their opinion? Must
they frame new bill to suit the wishes
of the Executive? If so, then the Ex-
ecuLive forces the houses of Congress.
Mr.. President, this will not do. The
reasoning will not stand the test of logic
and analysis at all. There is no coercion
whatever; there is sim ly difference be.
tween the two houses, or between both
houses and the Executive, and if that
should result in failure,o the bill it is
not coercion either on the one hand or
upon the other hand.
An exchange says: "Both questions
which are to go before the people, put
the Republican party on the defensive,
which is the worst position for party
to occupy. First, the presence of troops
at the polls. Who will defend this in a
country boasting of free institutions,
when the law in England will not per-
NIT soldier to appear within two miles
of voting placer Second, Supervisors
and Deputy Marshals. Investigation has
proved beyond successful dispute that
these officers are nothing but parti9ans
clothed with power to carry elections,
and that a quarter of a million at least,
and probably much more, has been ta-
ken from the public Treasury for every
Congressional and Presidential election,
to pay for their services. 1t was natural
that the Republicans, who had hereto
fore profted by the use of the army, by
the Deputy Mar8hals, and by cam.
paign fund furnished from the peoples
taxes, should resist the repeal of the
laws by which these abuses were per.
mitted. But when they claim that this
course will be vindicated at the ballot
box by a popular vote, they delude
thpmaplVne -