The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-06-26

tives. I will not so legislate that
against its own honorable instincts and
traditions it shall be the instrument OF
tyranny in the hands of a factious party
or of an executive who might be 80 un-
scrupulous as to use it unlawfully. Nor
shali consent, because of any difference
of opinion upon matters of legislation
between the majority and the minority,
or between the majority and the Presi-
dent, to close the courts of justice, stop
the administration of the Departments,
and, embarrass the necessary and orderly
life of the Government. The Constitu-
ton, which have not idly sworn to sup
port, has provided the means by which
an appeal to the country can be taken,
and it is for che people to decide wheth-
er the presidential veto has been wisely
and patriotically used to defeat the will
of this Congress which represents vast
majority Of the citizens of the United
States. My duty will have been per-
formed when have used all the. power
with which that Constitution has en-.
trusted me. The President and the mi
nority in Congress must be responsible
for the use of theirs. And while these
are my general views of duty, I certain
" have no inducement, no disposition,
to embarrass the present Administra-
ton.
It is a source of profound regret to me
that the President could not find himself
able to approve the bills he has vetoed.
To me they seem to embody but simple
declarations of constitutional principles,
and to be in entire conformity with the
policy which he has announced repeated
" as the one that he would pursue. But
1 am not disposed, on account of this diff
ference, grave though it be, to denounce
his action nor to impugn his motives. l
am we'll aware that his position is not
easy nor his responsibility light. 1 re-
member, and the people whom l repre-
sent remember, that in a critical period
of our history, in disregard of the pas.
sions and in opposition to the wishes of
the party who placed him in his pres
ent position, with doubt as to the result
of his independent action, moved, as l
honestly believe, by his convictions of
duty, he withdrew the Federal troops
from the State Houses of South Carolina
and Louisiana, thus enabling the people
of these States to restore their local gov
ernments to those who represent the pop
ular will, as well as the character, the in
telligence, and the property of the two
States. For this action, wise and patri-
otic as am sure that history will record
it, I for one am grateful. And while
in the honest and necessary party diff
ferences which must arise in free coun-
try it will be my duty, with all the ener-
gy and ability I possess, to oppose the
partisan policy of which he is the repre-
sentative, my opposition shall not be
captious. Nor shall I, by bitter and ac-
rimonious censure, drive him into de-
pendence on those who would, in their
selfish rush for power, trample on him
and on US. I trust, therefore, in what I
have to say, I 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 reasonable? If the repeating acts
which have been suggested were passed
to-day, we should simply be remanded to
the legislation under which the country
has lived and moved and had its being
for seventy-five years of its existence.
Can such q restoration be revolution or
treason? Surely not, unless the intervening
war has so changed our relations to each
other thatthe old constitutional legislation
is no longer applicable to our condition ;
and yet this is really what Senators on the
other side would have the country be-
lieve. ask, in all candor, would such
legislation as we now seek to repeal have
been conceived or defended by any states
man before the late war? Would any
President, from 1889 to 1861, ever have
dreamed of sending an army of the Uni
ted States to keep the peace at the polls,
or of appointing Federal supervisors and
marshals to superintend the popular bal
lot? If not, then the necessity for the
maintauence of this legislation arises
from something new in the relations of
the States to the Union. Will any Sen
ator point out what that new element is ?
If any exists, what is the difference in the
relations State holds to the Union to-day
and those ofthe 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 legislation
to-day which did not exist then? This
question should, think, be fairly an
swered, because it is the point upon
which the accusations against the South
rest. If all that we ask is what existed
for three-quarters ofa century of our ex-
istence, how can it be revolutionary or
reasonable to make this demand? Ifthe
democratic doctrine that Federal troops
cannot lawfully be used at the polls, or
cannot interfere in State matters unless
specially requsted to do so by the consti-
tuted authorities of State be heresy,
we have the strongest republican author
ity to sustain that heresy. In his mes
sage to the Legislature of Pennsylvania,
in January, 1871, Governor John w.
Geary used the following language:
"The employing of troops of the Uni
ted States at elections, without the con-
sent of the local and State Governments,
has recently received considerable atten-
ton and apprehension. Under
any circumstances, in my opinion, it is
unsafe and antagonistic to the principles
that should govern our republican insti-
tutions. At the last October elections,
United States troops were stationed in
Philadelphia for the avowed purpose of
enforcing the election laws. This was
done without 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, as far as can be ascertain
ed, without existing necessity"
The democratic party stands to-day
where Governor Geary, staunch repub-
lican, stood then. Nor are We without
other and equally as high republi-
can authority to sustain the position
taken by our party. Hon. Carl Schurz,
now distinguished member of the pres
ent 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