The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1879-04-17
BAYoNETS OR NOT?
Notable Speech Of Mr.. Blackburn
Against Bayonet Rule.
No Compromise of Principle.


the G institution down to the pres
ent time, it had ever been held, an,
by the highest authorities IN til
land, that it was in the power of tn
House to control the empl' ymen
of the army by Withdrawing sup
plies. In the very nature of thing
the proposed repeal could not h
revolutionary. Negative Legislation
was never Revolutionary. The Con
stitutiOD did not give the right I,
the President to send armed forces
into any State, even to repress do
nestle violence. IT. required the
President to protect any State from
invasion, but only conferred upor
him power to send soldiers TO thai
State to suppress domestic violence
when the Legislature of that State
or the Governor should make a re
QUESTION upon him He was moi
p rmitted to ticipate violence
neither he, nor the Legislature, moi
the Governor. Domestic vioienc,
must have been in existence. and
| that fact must have been certified
to him by the Legislature. More
than one third of all the prominent
| legislation affecting that ann of the
government had been put upon the
statute books as riders upon army
appropriation bills. If lectures
were to be read to the Democrats,
let them come from some quarter
and some member not convicted on
the record. Did the gentleman from
Ohio Mr.. GarfieId) remember the
record he had made in 1868 on the
amendment offered by Mr.. Wilson.
of Indiana, on the appropriation
bill proposing to revolutionize the
judicial system of the country; pro-
posing to strip the Supreme Court
of the prerogatives and powers that
the Federal Constitution had cloth
ed it with? Revolutioni WHAT
was there that that party the gen
| tleman so ably led had not done in
that catalogue of crime2 In a
speech Saturday the gentleman
from Ohio had challenged all com.
ers to show a single instance in the
history of the country where the
Executive of the country had been
coerced. He (Mr. Black burn) had
accepted the guage of battle which
the gentleman had thrown down
He would read from the record and
show him an instance. On March
2, 1867, Andrew Johnson signed an
appropriation bill under protest
Was there no coercion there? Why
the record was full of instances. He
| found that in the Thirty ninth Con
gress one had occurred which would
never fade from the minds of the
American people. He referred &c
the effort which had been made
and which came so nigh resulting
in the successful impeachment o.
the Chief Executive. There were
two principal indictments in this
count. One was the exercise of the
veto power, and the other his inter
ference, not in elections, but to pre-
| vent the interference of the army
power in elections. The count had
| been voted upon more than once
and the gentleman from Ohio was
on record every time as voting m
their favor, and had been supported
in his action, and had voting with
him to impeach the President for the
| exercise of the veto power one then
comparatively obscure, and who,
but for a combination of accidents
would have remained to this day
and in his dying day in that oh
security for which nature and his
Creator seemed to have fitted him
side by side with Mr.. Hayes, of the
same State. Applause. And now
by what sort of authority had the
gentleman from Ohio come to
threaten the House with the proha-
BILE action of the Executive2 VIVA;
provision of the Federal Consti u
ton undertook to clothe anybody,
either the President or one of his
privy council, even including his
Premier, the Secretary of State, to
sit, as he had done, on the floor OF
the House last Sunday, and by his
presence and approval seem to in
tim;date, overawe and browheat the
American Congress? Derisivt
laughter on the republican side.
Referring to Mr.. Garfeld's state
ment regarding Mr.. Powell, he said:
Did not the gentleman from Ohio
know that the amendment to Sena
tor Powell's bill had feen incorpO
rated upon it by motion of Senator
| Pomeroy, and that every democrat
had voted against it, Senator Pow.
ell among the number? 1t was mol
candid, it was not fair, for the gen
tleman to place dead statesmen II
such a false position. Let one take
the history of the country for the
last II long years, aud read it care
| fully and tell me then whether il
| lies in the mouth of this waning
party to read lectures to any body
| legislation or the extraneous intro
duction of legislation on appropria
ton bills. Better far, in the face OF
the record which they have made,
better to listen patiently to con
| firmed inebriate as he dwells on the
virtues of temperance, or better let
the queen of the deDai monde elabo
rate on the beauties OF female NOR
ality; better let the devil pirate OF
Christianity than for homilies on
good morals and lectures on revo
Iutionary legislation to be delivered
from such a source. Applause on
the democratic side. Let it go to
the country that one party in this
Congress asserts that the manacles
shall fall from the limbs of freemen,
and that the army shall not hold it,
mailed hand at the throat of the
sovereign, while the other party de
clares that rather than release its
grasp it will bring the Government
to starvation. We were willing e.
accept the issue aye, more, We e
farther and admit we are the one:
vino make the issue, and we ar,
ready for you TO accept it. Plant
ing ourselves on this broad ground
we welcome the controversy. Fol-
the first time in eighteen years ths
democracy is back in power in boil
1 T.n@r2Zo