The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-03-29
XIV CONGRESS--IST SESSION.
HOUSE

AAASANSA'UA
been placed in the petition box as 1t did not represent
in itself matter of privilege
Mr.. Young referring to the appointment of a select
committee to investigate the election of his colleague
(Butterworth and himself, sent to the clerks desk
and had read an extract from the report of the grand
iury, (Which had just examined the matter) to the
effect that the grand jury after examining fifty wit
nes.es found no ground take further proceedings.
He EXPLAINED his object was to prove to the House
that his colleague and himself were not considered in
Hamilton county as very bad persons.
Mr.. Tucker offered an amendment repeating the
lawwhich prohibits any personwno mas served in any
capacity In military, naval or civil service of the
Confederate States from being appointed to any posi-
tion in the army of the United States. He trusted it
would meet the appreciation of both sides, and said
that the stigma resting very large class of the
population OF the Southern States should be wiped
from the statute book now and forever.
point of order was made by Mr.. Conger and in
sisted on by Messrs. Sparks Cymer and others. Mr..
Conger remarked that Tucker had thrown down the
gage of battle and that the gentleman had had
courage to offer what the Democrats had repeatedly
said was premature proposition. He himself had
been laughed at scornfully when he had suggested
the reduction of the army, proposed in order to
make room for Southern brigadiers.
Mr.. Conger subsequently withdrew his point of or
der but it was renewed by Mr.. Sparks aud sustained
by the chair.
Consideration of the army bill having been conlud-
edwith the exception of the section repeating statues
allowing military to preserve peace at the polls
that section was read.
Mr.. Conger to point of order that the section
changed existing law and did not retrench expepd.
lures.
MIR. Sparks admitted that the section changed ex-
istng law but argued that it retrenched expendi-
lures.
Mr. Frye argued that the section did not affect the
transportation of the army because the President
commandment. chief and could transport troops
wherever he pleased, and there was no power in the
House to say he should transport troops here and not
there.
same line.
Mr.. Sparks asked Robinson whether if the uses to
which the army could be applied were diminish ed
that would not necessarily reduce expenditures.
Mr.. Robinson-I 90 deeper than that question
goes. You cannot take from the President the pow
er to send the army even toput down domestic yio
fence at the polls. If you can't take away that power
you can't save dollar.
Mr.. Sparks-Can we not repeal this section and
say the army shall not be used to keep peace at the
| polls?
Mr.. Mclean expressed the belief that the PROPOSE
tcn commended for the Republican side (that Con-
gress could not economze money by controlling the
use OF the army had never been made before in eth
er house of Congress. He commended that the power
to make rules and regulations for the government Of
the army and navy was a fundamental power eli
! Congress, and he never heard that power cues
toned.
Mr.. Haskell asked Mclean whether he had read
/ the 4th section OF the constitution which says the
United States shall guarantee to every State Re-
publican form OF government, and shall protect il
against invasion and Con application of its legislature
or governoragainst domestic violence and whether in
spite of this proposed repeal President could not
on application of the governor of New York, order
troops to preserve peace at the polls in the city
New York..
Mr.. Mclean replied that the question was not at
| all pertinent to the question az issue.
Mr.. Haskell-Under the operations of this law do
| you pretend to say that under no circumstances
shall troops be sent to any poll? ask you whether
in spite of this proposed repeal if the governor of
New York should on election day ask the
President that troops be given him right there at the
polls to put down violence the troops would net be
| sent under the constitution?
/ Mr.. Observation-Disclosures the governor of state
certiies to the President that he can't suppress an
insurrecion that is existing the President is bound
by the constitution to send troops to suppress it,
Mr.Haskell-Andthat would be in spite OF this law
Mr.. McLean-Nol law of Congress can control that
power.
Mr.. McMahen-The section speaks of armed
enemies of the United States. ask the gentleman
from Kansas when persons become armed enemies
| of tue United States?
Mr.. Haskell-Judging from the remarks on one
It'd a0f@ t,, r1rs.,. ~
before My Maker that do not know what that side
of the House would consider to be armed enemies OF
the United States. (Appiause the Republican
| side)
Mr.. Kiefer argued against the proposed section.
Mr.. Carlisle thought the House and country would
hesitate long time before accepting the doctrine
laid down by Mr.. Frye that the President as COM
mander in chief of the army can transport troops
wherever he pleases and use them for whatever he
pleases without the consent of Congress. This was
the first time he ever heard such doctrine an
nounced by gentleman of such responsibility and
intelligence. Although the king of Great Britain
could raise armies with the authority of Parliament
yet for than 2O0years parliament had controlled
the king in the use of the army in this country the
President could not enlist equip or use single
soldier without the consent Of Congress- and vet
there was now claimed for him a power far more
extensive and far more dangerous to the Liberties Of
the people than the monarch of Great Britain DOS.
sessed. He undertook to affirm that under the
constitution the President had no right to use the
army and navy to protect states against domestic
violence or exercise state laws except he was
authorized to do so by Congress. Did the gentleman
on the other side mean to say that the provision
constitution which made it the duty of the United
Stated to guarantee to every state Republican
form of government had conferred upon the Presi.
dent-a single officer of the United States-that
power? Were the gentlemen prepared to go before
the country on the proposition that the President
| was the United States?
Mr.. Conger asked Mr.. Carlisle to whom the appli-
cation to protect state from domestic violence came
| il not to the President?
Mr.. Carlisle replied: The application came to the
President, The constitution made it duty, not Of
the President, but of the United States government
to protect states from domestic violence on applica-
| tion Of the government or legislature.
MIR. Bayne-Did not this legislation which it is now
| proposed to repeal confer it upon him?
| Mr.. Carlisle-Yes, and the same power that con-
ferred the authority him by legislation can take it
away from him. Applause on the Democratic side. J
Mr.. Frye-The gentleman in commencing his
speech stated that it was claimed that the President
had power to transport troops wherever he pleased
l I0r any purpose WHATEVER. L ulu not say j did
not claim it and I never claimed it. What claimed
simply was this, that if the words "to keep the
peace at the pos'' were stricken out, there would
not be any restriction whatever on the power of the
| commander-in-cbief to transport the army from
barrack to barrack and from state to state as he saw
fit That is all that claim, and does not the gentle
| man admit it?
| Mr.. Carlise-I agree TO it.
Mr.. Frye L was simply illustrating it to show that
this section does not on its face reduce expenditures
Mr.. Carlfsle-But if the President desired 10
transport the army not only from post to post within
the states and territories but to distribute it among
all polling places, ask if the cost of transportation
would not be greatly increased?
Mr.. Frye-Not necessarily. Qronical laughter on
the Democratic side9 The President might desire IN
transport the whole army to the borders of Texas
that would be much more expensive than placing half
dozen soldiers at the polls in the South to friebten
the whole white population of that voting district.
Debate was prolonged to great length, but adjourn
ment came without arriving at an agreement over
the disputed section.
The Affairs of Archbishop Purcell.
CINCINNATI March 2S.-Excitement was created
at meeting of Catholic priests of this diocese last