The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1879-04-18

1t seems that Republican Congress has
supplied itself in the same manner laugh
teri; but instead of the FOOLS cap and jing-
ling bells, which might perhaps slit very
well, it has dressed its jester in swallow
tails. Loud laughter on the Democratic
side
.Coager-I asked the heroic gentleman
from Mississippi plain, civil, simple ques-
ton, and instead of answering he jumps
upon his music.bo and makes grimaces
to the country and the House Counter
demonstrations on the Republican side,
members clapping their hands and indulg-
ing in loud laughter for considerable
time.
Chalmers-Thc gentleman is mistaken.
shall certainly not undertake to play
game at which any monkey can beat ME.
Laughter on the Democratic side.
Frye, of Maine, next obtained the floor,
and made speech of considerable length
in defense Of the Republican party, aud
charging the Democracy of the South with
numbering citizens. He declared that the
Democratic party would not get control of
The capitol and that it had as much as it
could attend to to keep possession of the
House.
And now came the speech not only of the
day, but of the session 1t was made by
Frank IIurd, of Ohio. 1t was mcritorious
in every respect, in matter, in manner, and
more than all in length. Hurd is trained
lawyer, and his speeches in the House arc
like his arguments in court-always to the
point. III argued the constitutional power
of the House to do that which the Demo
cratic majority proposed to do, and he did
it with masterly ability. There was no
question about it. Like the thorough lawyer
that he is, he adhered to his brief through
out his speech, every point was illustrated
with wealth of legal lore and historical
references, which bespoke literary as we'll
as legal training. The speech was scarcely
twenty minutes long, but it covered every
question involved, and the Democratic ma
jority might we'll rest their case upon this
argument
Hc began by quoting the provision of the
constitution, that all bills Tor raising rcvc.
nue. shall originate in the House of Repre-
scntatvcs. lie then sketchcd the history
Of this question in the last Congress, and
said that he proposed to show that the
House was right in the position which it
in the position which it took now If any
thing had been settled by the legislation
| OF the last quarter century ii was that gen
eral legislation itself might be attached to
appropriation bills, and certainly no one
would dispute the proposition that measures
in regard to economy, and bearing on the
revenue, were required to be originated in
the House. The House was right in in
sisting that these Objectionable measures
should be repealed. The House insisted
that the law should be amended so as to
prohibit the use of troops at the polls, and
so that supervisors of elections (appointcd
by Federal authority should no longer pos
scss their present powers, and that there
| should be Il repeal Of all statutes comforting
on United States officers the power to in-
terfcrc with or regulate State elections
The House was right in that demand first.
because these provisions Of law were uncon-
stitutional. They intericrcd with the right
Of suffrage and with the State laws. The
second section Of the constitution declared
that the House should be composed of
members chosen by the people oftho several
States, and that the electors should have
the qualifications requisite for electors of
the most numerous branches Of the State
Legislature. 1t was, therefore, the most
numerous branch ola State Legislature that
determined the qualifications Of electors, and
not the constitution of the United States.
There was no such thing as the right of
suffrage for n citizen Of the United States
The right of suffrage was possessed and
enjoyed under the laws Of the States cx-
prcssly recognized by the fundamental laws
Of the land. The Supreme Court had re.
Gently so decided. On what theory, then,
did the legislation rest? On what theory
did the government send troops to the polls
at State elections Only on the theory
that the right Of suffrage was 4 right guar
antecd by the constitution Of the United
States. and that it was the business of Con-
Sress to protect that right. lie had shown,
however, by the express phrascology Of the
constitution and by the decision Of the Su-
prcmc Court that no such right did exist
under the constitution, and, therefore, the
consequence was inevitable and irresistible
that any legislation on the subject was
unconstitutional. lie alluded to the fact
that the measures which it was proposed to
repeal wcro from their very nature. danger
GUS and destructive to civil liberty, and said
all history is full Of warning on thissubjcct.
No republic has ever gone into its grave
save through military interference. Shall
we escape the force and application Of a
universal rule Is power less sweet. are