The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1879-05-10

glo- Saxon race to believe that a free people
would tOerate---cXccpt on great emergencies,
| like war wagcd for the maintenance OF tue
Union-thc interference of the military in civ
ic concerns. And they were men OF principle
and did not wish it To be otherwise.
IL is no new thing in time of peace to repeal
II law passed in time of war Indeed, no wise
statesman Will hesitate to do il if the law bc
unsuitable to the changed condition Of things.
Ii is u part of the very nature of every man OF
our race to rebel against anything which inter.
fcrcs with the freedom Of elections, and the
days of the republic are numbered if the PEG
pie ever consent to place the ballotboX under
the protection OF the bayonct.
But, Mr. President, this consent VIII never
be obtained until they have forgotten the prin-
eiplcs OF constitutional liberty and the prece-
dents set by the Commons OF England. These
presidents refrain from referring 10 at length,
but the preamble to IN act passed III the time
of George II. 1855 forblddlng the presence OF
troops at elections is so appropriate that beg
leave 10 read 1t:
Whereas by the ancient common law OF THIS
land all elections ought to be free; and whereas
bv an act passed in the third year OF the reign
Of King Edward the First, of famous memory, II
is commanded, upon great forfeiture, that no
man, by force of arms, nor by malice or menac.
ing shall disturb any to make free election; and
forasmuch as the freedom of elections OF mem
beers to serve in Parliament Is OF the utmost con
sequence to the preservation OF the rights ana
liberties of this Kingdom; and whereas II has
been the usage and practice to cause any regi-
ment, troop, or company, OF any number OF sol
ders which hath been quartcred in any city, Dor
ough, town, or place where any election OF mem,
bers to serve in Parliament hath been appointed
to be made, to remove and continue out OF the
same during the time Of such election, except in
such particular cases are hereinafter specliled
chickering's Statutes, volume IL.
And the history of Parliament contains this
incident:
The military having been called in to quell an
alleged riot at Westminster election in I'LL, II
was resolved, Dec -, THAT the presence of
regular body of armed soldiers at an election Of
members to serve in Parliament is high in
fringcment OF the liberties Of the subject,a mani
fest violation of the freedom of elections and an
open defiance of the laws and Constitution OF
this Kingdom The persons concerned i'll THIS,
having been ordered TO attend the House, recciv
cd, on their knees, a very severe reprlmand from
the Speaker.-Parliamen History, IN, SIG
Can 1t be possible that prInclple OF com
mon law-the RIGHT OF the people 10 have an
election free from the presence Of troops-so
dear 10 EngliShmen one hundred years ago Is
not equally dear 10 their descendants al the
present day?
Mr. President, it VIII require some one now
living 10 write. accurately the history OF these
times, for the future historian will be slow to
believe that there was any basis on which to
rest such an inquiry in the Congress OF The
United States during the latter part of the
century Why, then, should not
the law Of 1865 be altered in the manner pro
posed by this bill
1t is said that Mr. Lincoln signed it, and the
inference is that it would reflect on his memo
Try to change it. To say the least, this is a
pretty strong presumption from such pred-
cate No man loved Mr. Lincoln better or
honOrs his memory more than do, nor had
any one greater opportunities to learn the con
stitution of his mind and character and his
habits of thought He was large hearted, wis
er than those associated with him, full ofsym-
pathy for struggling humanity without malice,
with charity for erring man, loving his whole
country with deep devotion, and intensely
anxious to save it, Believing as | do that he
was raised up by Providence tor the great cri-
SIS of the war of the rebellion, have equal
belief, had he lived, we would have been spar
ed much of the strife of these latter days, and
that we now would be on the high road to
prosperity. Such Il man, hating all forms Of
oppression, and deeply imbued with the prin-
ciplc that induced the men of 1716 to resist
the stamp tax, would never have willingl IN
trusted power to any one, unless war was fla
grant, to send troops to oversee an election.
Why, then, repeat, should not the propos
ed measure pass? There is no rebellion, nor
any threatened, nor any domestic uproar any
where. The Union Is cemented by the blood
that was shed in defense Of its integrity; the
laws are obeyed North and South, East and
West, and our only real differences relate to the
administration of the internal affairs OF the
IA, In titIn nf tbn hII
man mind, there will of necessity be divers
opinions among the people on the best way 10
manage their internal affairs, and Congress
meets periodically TO legisate for the people
and to represent their views on the questions
dividing them. But surely these differences,
be they great or small, afford no justification
for departure from any of the principles that
underle republican government If they do,
the charter Of our liberties will be soon frittcr-
ed away.
The charge that this is revolutionary leg
islatiOn has no force. 1t nigh BE- called a par
tisan device. Congress has power under the
Constitution to raise and equip armies, and
the House of Representatives holds the purse
strings.
In the pending Army bill nothing is propos,
ed but to strike out a single clause torbidding
the presence of troops at the polls. In no re-
Swcr call to repel invasion, or to suppress
insurrectIon, in any way abridged. The
amendment is germanc TO the bill, and is sim
ply IA condition as to the use of the army,
which the peoples representatives had Il per
feet right to impose. II is not in any proper
SENSE general legislation, and ii it was, the
statute books are full of prcccdents that the
friends of the present measure might cite
against their opponents.
Whether the clause in question ought to b"
repealed is Il fair subject for discussion, but
the form of presenting it is not liable to jus,
criticism. Personally, should have preferred
to vote on the proposition as m Independent
bill, because the practice of both parties of leg.
iSlatng on appropriation bills is more TO he
hOnored in the breach than in the observance.
If this course had been pursued it is probable
the whole debate would have been less acri-
mon inns md the nXnitnunnni A,.linl hos fol