The daily gazette., 1879-04-05
The Federal Election Laws
Debate in the House on Thursday


SPEECH OF j. PROCTOR KNOTT.
MIR. Knott said the question under dis
cussion involved the great fundamental
principal of republican liberty-that the
ballot-box should be protected from the
slightest approach of military power, and
the voters left absolutely free In exercis-
Ing at the polls the high prerogative of
sovereign citizens. 1t was unjust to his
friends (Mr. Frye character as states
man to assume that the idle vagaries of
an obscure country editor was a reflex of
the sentiment of the intelligent portion
Of the country in which he (the editor)
lived, whether he was a native of that
community or had recently moved into IL
with the intention of misrepresenting the
sentiments of its people. lie did not in
tend, and he did not think his party in
tended, to be led away from the great
question under consideration to the dis
cussion of any collateral issue whatever,
but 1t intended to move right on to the
accomplishment of the high purpose upon
which they were resolved. He denied
that the law now proposed to be repealed
was tbs one introduced by Senator Pow
ell, of Kentucky. That bill made it un-
lawful for any officer of the army to In
terfere with elections; in that bill were
no such words as those now proposed to
be struck out; they had been inserted by
MIR. Pomeroy, (rep.,) of Kansas. He
argued that the words to be stricken out
were in violation of the constitutions
The idle squib about "revolution" in
connection with this measure was too
absurd TO be ridiculous.
He believed that the same Divinity
who had led His chosen people through
the desert tor forty years would lead the
democratic party on till it had "captured
the CAPITOL" but he hoped that gentlemen
OIL the other side would not expect such
slackand pillage as they seemed to antic;-
pate. The democratic party simply intend
ed when it "captured the capitol"to throw
OIL the chains that had been thrown
around the people, to plant its banner on
the dome of the capitol, embazoned
with the legend. equal and exact JUS
tice to all men-exclusive privileges to
nome" IL intended to protect the purity
OF the ballot-box, which was the corner
stone of personal liberty and Of free gov
ernment, and to see to 1t that the mi itary
shall at all times and under all circum-
stances be subordinate to the civil au-
thority. 1t intended to preserve the
ancient b.rthright of the American citi-
Zen to trial by jury in all its purity. 1t
intended that all the ring-masters and
jobbers and knaves who had fastened
like vampires on the body polite OF the
country for years past shall be driven
forth as the money-changers were scourg-
cd from the temple by the Saviour Of
mankind. 1t intended that every abuse
of power should be arraigned not on y
before the great bar ofpublic opinion, but
before the established tribunals of the
country. 1t intended to preserve the
rights, the dignity and the equality of all
the States unimpaired as the safest pro-
lection of domestic concerns, and as the
surest bulwark against anti-republican
tendencies. 1t intended to maintain fed
eral government as supreme In its con-
stituIional sphere, and to let all the States
in splendid galaxy of equal republics
move on forever in their appointed Or
bits, and with the beauty and harmony
that made the music Of the spheres when
the morning stars sang together, and all
the SONS of God shouted for Joy. Zap
plause on the democratic side
SPEECH OF MIR. BLACKBURN.
Mr.. Black burn, of Kentucky, who was
the next speaker, promised his speech
with the hope that he would in no way
depart from the plain rule of fairness in
de bate; that no utterance of his would
give call to the charge that any sectional
Question was involved in the issue under
consideration. Nobody had been sur
prsed mt the speech of gentleman from
New jersey (Mr. Robeson.) The per-
formance would not have been complete,
would not have been fairly FOUNDED out, ,
unless some member of the privy council
of that imperialirtic dynasty under whose
administration the very vicious practice
had grown up, which 1t was now sought
to repeal, had testified on the floor III Is
behalf. 1t had been argued by various
gentlemen ON the other side that this re-
Deal was revolutionary in Its character;
that it had no place upon an appropria-
ton bill; that IL was OUT OF line, anu
should be considered as an independent
proposition. He was but poor student
of this country's history who was not
able to satisfy himself that from the
foundation OF the constitution down to
the prese mt time it had ever been held
(and that by the highest authorities in
the land) that it was in the power OF the
House to control the employment of the
army by the withholding OF supplies.
In the very nature Of things the propos-
ed repeal could not be- revolutionary.
Negative legislation was never revolu-
tionary. Affirmative legislation might
be, but not negative legislation. There
was no one who would assert that pre-
vi GUS to 1865 the Executive had held the
power of which this bill proposed to de-
Drive him. TIE constitution did not
give the right to the President to send
armed forces into any Stale, even to sup
press domestic violence, By no means.
Ii required the President to protect any
S ate from invasion, but only conferred
upon him the right to send soldiers to
that State to suppress domestic violence
when the Legislature of that State or
the Governor should make requisitlon
nnon him. He was not permitted to an