Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-05-29
MR.. CARLISLE'S GREAT PLEA,
AN HISTORICAL AND JURIDICAL
DISSECTION OF THE
STALWARTS.
NO METHOD nut REPEAL FOR VICIOUS
STATUTES WITH OPPRESSIVE
INTENT.

preparations Tor the legislative, eSeCu-
tive, and judicial expenses of the Gov
ernment for the fiscal year ending June
80, 1880, and for other purposes, Mr.
Carlisle said:
Mr.. CuAIRMAN: | shall discuss the
questions now under consideration in
the committee, so far as | shall discuss
them Mt all, in no mere partisan spirit,
and yet it may be necessary for me to
state some facts and submit some con.
clusions not strictly of non.partisan
character. The first question which
presents itself relates tn the form of
the proposed legislation and the method
by which it is sought TO be accomplish.
ed. So much has already been said on
this subject that | shall treat it very
briefly. Whatever the gentleman from
Pennsylvania who has just spoken Mr..
Kelley and others may think as to the
propriety of Incorporating substantive
legislation into appropriation bills, no
one of them can deny that it has been
so frequently done during the last quar-
ter of century as to have become tue
rule rather than the exception. Tween
ty.four years ago this House incorporst-
cd into the Consular aud Diploma ic
Appropriation bill-the most inapI.o-
pirate place that could be imagined--a
complete revision of all the tariff laws
of this country and sent it to the Senate.
That provision was struck out in that
body after long debate, not because of
the form in which it came, but because
of objections TO the substance of the
legislation itself. And it is entirely safe
to say that, at least since 1861, almost
every general appropriation bill passed
by Congress has contained provisions--
and in many instances most important
provisions-repealingi laws or enact
ing new ones, and this has bceu sane
toned by both political parties. Occa.
sionally protests have been made "a
they are made on this occasion, but in
no instance, SO far rs | am aware, has
such a protest been eilectual. During
the long domination Of the Republican
party in this House political legislation
of the most important character was
constantly enacted in these bills, ami a
part of the very laws which we now
seek to repeal were passed in the Sun.
dry Civil Appropriation bill approved
June 10, 1872. The very last Legisla.
tice, Executive and Judicial Apprupria.
ton bill passed in Congress during the
time it was under the control of that
party contained provision under which
every gentleman from the State OF Iowa
to-day claims and holds his seat upon
this floor. 1t is q very brief provision,
and | will read it:
That section % of the Revised Statutes,
prescribing the time for holding elections
for Representatives in Congress, is hereby
modified so as TO apply 10 any State that
has not yet changed its day Of election
and whose constitution must be amended
in order 30 effect q change in the day OF
the election of State officers in said State.
And the very next section in the bill
is one providing for the removal of suits
from the State courts to the United
States courts in certain cases. But, Mr.
Chairman, need not stop TO cite pre-
cedents or make an argument TO show
the existence of the right to resort TO
such methods Of legislation. That the
practice has been established and that
the right exists is admitted oy gentle
men on the other side but they charge
that it is revolutionary TO exercise the
right in this particular instance, be.
cause it is known or assumed that the
proposed legislation does not meet the
approval of the Executive. IL seems to
me that this places the gentlemen in a
far worse position before this House and
before the country than il they had
taken the bold and manly ground that
all the precedents established by them.
selves were wrong and that the right to
legislate in this form does not exist.
To say that the practice has been estab.
lished during a long series OF years by
both political parties and that the right
does in fact exist, but that it is revolu.
tionary to exercise the right in any in.
stance where it does not happen to meet
the approval of the President, is to say
that he is the master of the peoples
representative, and that we ought to
abandon an admitted practice and to
surrender an acknowledged right at his
dictation. IL is admitted that il is Meth
er unconstitutional nor revolutionary
simply to repeal these laws; but it is
charged that il Is both unconstitutional
and revolutionary to attempt to repeal
them in q manner the Executive does
not like. One gentleman. at least--the
gentleman from Maine tMr. Frye)-has
been candid enough to declare on this
floor, amid the applause of his political
friends, that we should not repeal these
eieCtioH laws uutili III Htliit HltHutft
the present Executive had been remov.
ed from office. Here Is the exact Ian
guage of the gentleman, az reported in
the official debates:
You have not repealed the law affording
protection 10 the voter at the polls yet.
You have not repealed the election laws
yet and you will not repeal them until
you have removed the present Executive
from his chair. Applause.l
Sir, this presents a square issue from
which we, as the representatives of a
majority of the people, cannot shrink
without dishonoring ourselves and de
grading our constituencies. II there
had previously been doubt "a TO the
propriety Of the course we have adopt
ed, that declaration and its indorsement
by the party of the Executive on this