The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1879-05-08
Mr.. Robeson's Speech.


Mr.. Rabeson, formerly Secretary of the
Navy, and now representing New Jersey
District in Congress. delivered an able con
stltntional argument in the House on the 23d
of April, on the pending appropriation bill.
The Washington correspondent of the New
York Times gives the following sketch OF ii:
Mr.. Robson, of New Jersey, made what
is conceded to have been the ablest argument
against the position taken by the Democrats
on the pending appropriation bills delivered
in Congress since the controversy began.
He spoke for two hours, without notes, and
was attentively listened to by both sides
throughout. He began his speech by reply
ing to the arguments OF the Democrats on tint
Army bill, advancing the proposition that the
repeating clauses inserted in chat bill Were
not intended merely as Limitation upon tile
use of the Army at the polls. The posse
comitatus clause inserted in the last Army
Appropriation act prevented military aud
naval officers from using the land and naval
forces at the polls except in ursuance OF the
Constitution or acts ri Congress. This wa
statutory prohibition upon the officers
named, and there was no necessity for re-
peating ir in the present Army bill, unIess.i
was intended TO serve as a cover for the pur-
pose Of the majority 10 strip the civil Officers
Of Ill authority anu over to preserve tn,
rights of citizens at the polls, and to quad
the ballot-box against pollution. IL had
been stated, he SAID, that the Republicans
would vote for the repeal OF tie Two sections
OF the Revised Statutes which it was prOpos
ed to amend by tile peuding Army bi Ii
presented as indepent measures, and this had
been Construed into an admission that the
Republicans would vote for the amendments
now proposed by the Democrats if separate
bills were offered for that purpose. mir. Roh-
esOn said this was misconstruction OF the
Republican position. They would vote to
repeal the entire sections, but would not vott
to repeal clause which authorized civil off
GERS to use the power conferred upon them
by law to protect the citizen in the full exer-
else of his rights at the polls.
Mr.. Robson then proceeded to reply to the
arguments made by Mr.. Tucker, OF Virginia.
and Mr.. Carlisle, Of Kentucky, as to the lin
itation of the powers of the Federal Covert
ment, and succeeded admirably in demolish-
ing the States rights theories Of Mr.. Tucker,
and in completely overturning the arguments
of Mr.. Carlisle touching the right of the
General Government to confer citizenship.
He said there was no difference between Re-.
publicans and Delnocr ITS upon the general
premises touching the powers and purposes
Of the Constitution, but they differ Ell in their
ideas Of the organic law. The Democrats
believed that we were members of differell
sovereignties, while the Republicans belev-
ed we were members of a National Govern
nent. He discussed this proposition at con-
siderable length, citing the acts and quoting
the writings of the founders Of the Republic
to show that they aimed to establish SOY
erign Government and not scattered and
loosely made confederacy Of States. He ad-
I..c ~
power except that expressly conferred upon
il by the Constitution. 1t had no implied
powers. but it was Government establish
I'd BY the Constitution, with all the powers
and attributes of sovereignty. There was q
Limitation upon the powers Of the Federal
Government, but this limitation was only a.
to the lumber and not as to the quality OF
it's powers. 1t was unlimited III it's sover
eighty as to those ;hings over which it was
given power. and when it acted in its cob
sLitutional sphere its sovereignty was unlim-
| tied. That this was the purpose Of the foun-
ders of the Government was, lie argued.
plainly shown by article OF the Constitu-
! ton, which provides that ''this Constitution.
aud the laws OF the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be
the supreme law of the land, and the Judges
Of every State shall be bound thereby, any
thing in the Constitution or laws OF any
State to the contrary Notwithstanding" He
denied the correctness OF the theories adj
vancei by Mr.. Carlisle at the Unlimited States
could not confer citizenship, aud supported
his position upon this branch of his argu-
ment by quoting the fourteenth amendment
to the Constitution, which declares that "Al
persons born or naturalized in the United
States ard subject to the jurisdiction thereof
| o:t; Il -
States wherein they reside. No State. he
argued, can make man citizen Of the Uni
ted States is made citizen Of the State where
he resides by reason OF the citizenship con-
ferleh upon him by the Federal Constitution
Applying these premises to the question.
under immediate consideration, he argue
that it was competent for tue Federal Gov
erument to make laws t. protec the citizen
in those rights conferred upon him by tn.
Constitution and the laws made in pursu
ance thereof, and that it was the right andtllt
duty OF the President to use all force confer
ed upon him by Congress to enforce thu
laws.
Mr.. Robeson concluded by warning tue
Democrats against the folly Of endeavoring
to maintain tile theory Of State rights, re
minding them that those theories had been
forever exploded by four years of war. Up
ON concluding his remarks he was warmly
congratulated by the Republicans aud by
the better class of members OH the Democrat
lc side.
THE JURORS TEST OATH-The Suprem,
Court OF the United States Monday, in til,
case Of all appeal from the United State
District Court of the northern dist let O
Florida, decided, Justice Strong alone dis
senting, that a juror cannot. under the con
stitution, be required to answer the question
which the United States district attorney
empowered to ask him under section $40 .
Of the Revised Statutes. Justice Field, VIII
delivered the opinion of the court, said tina