The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1879-04-10
GARFIELD'S SPEECH.
The Leaders OF the House Denoune-
ing COerciTe LegislatiOn-The
Crisis Brought Upon the
Country by the Democ
raey-The Theory
OF Our Govern
ment.


Country by the Democ
racy-The Theory
/, OF Our Govern
= ment.
WASHINGTON, March 2S-After soIas
discussion regarding the rules, tie
, House, at l2.4D p. H., went into Com
mittee Of the WhOie-Mr. Springer, OF
I Illinois, in the cEair-On the army Ilr
: preparation bill.
u, Mr.. Garfield, of Ohio. took the floor
He began his spelch by referring Il
the crisis that had now Deen brought
upon the country, and declared that
/, the House lad to-day resolved 10 enteI
, upon a revolution against the cOnStltU-
; tiOn and the government, and that the
: consequence OF that resolve, ii persist.
! ed in, meant nothing short of the sdb-
: version Of the government. He sketch
Ell the point at issue between the two
, houses at the close of the Lust Congress
and read from report Of one Of the
. Senate cOnferees. to the effect that the
Democratic cOnfereeS on the part of
, the House were determined, unless the
action of the House was cOncurred in,
TO refuse making appropriations 10
carry on the government, and he also
quoted from the speach of Senator
Beck (anOther of the cOnfeTees), to the
effect that the Democrats claimed the
right which the House of Commons in
+ England lad established after two
centuries Of conquest, to say that they
would nIt grant the money of the peO
pie unless there was a redress of grieY-
anceS. THESE propositions, continued
Mr.. Garfield, in various forms, more or
less yehemently, were repeated in the
last House, and with that situation of
affairs the session came near its close.
The Republican majority in the Senate,
and the Republican majority in the
House, expressed the deepest possible
sOlicitude to avoid the catastrophe
here threatened. They expressed their
strongest desire to avoid the danger to
the country and to its business of an
extra 81 ssiOn of Congress, and they eX-
pressed their willingness To let go
what they considered the least impOr-
tant of tile propositiOns-nOt rs 4 mat
ter Of coercion at all, but us a matter
of fair adjustment and cOmprOmiSe-if
| they COULD be met in the spirit of adj
justment on the other side. CnfOrtu-
nately, no spirit Of adjustment appear
ell on the other side to meet
their advances. And now the
new Congress is assembled, and
after ten days of deliberatiOn,
the House OF Representatives has
resolved substantially to Teaflirm
the propositions of its predecessor, and
on these propositions we are met to-
day.
The question may be asked why we
make any SPECIAL resistance to prOpO-
l sltiOns which great mdny gentlemen
have declared are to DC considered Of
no importance. So far as this side is
concerned, L desire to say this: We
recognize you, gentlemen of the other
SIDE, rs skilled parliamentarians and
/ Skillful strategistS. You have chosen
| wisely and adrOitly your line of as
| sault. You have put forward, perhaps,
the leaStObjectiOpable of your measures,
| but we meet that as one part of your
programme, We reply to it as an or
/ der of battle, and we are as much COM
meet you on the skirmish line as we
would DE If YOU were attacking the in
| trenchments themselves. And, there
fore, on the threshold, we desire to
plant our case on the general grounds
| o II which we choose to defend it. Mr.
! Garfield then referred To what he had
said on the last day of the last Con-
gress, rs to the division of the govern
ment into three partS-the nation. the
! Senate, and the ileQplei and he said 4
| foreigner could point dozen ways in
which the government could be killed,
and that not by violence. OF course,
all governments might he overturned
by the sword But there were some
ways by which this government
might be utterly annihilated
without the firing of Il gum
The people might say that they
would not elect Representatives That,
of course, was a violent suppOSitiOn,
but there was no possible remedy for
such a condition of things, and with
ont a House of Representatives there
cqlld ha no sgplQIt qf a government,
/ and consequently there could be no
| government. So the States might say
| through their Legislatures that they
/ would not elect Senators. The very
| abstentiOn from electin9 Senators
would absolutely destroy the govern
ment and there would be no process of
cOmpulsiOn. Or, suppOSing that the
| two houses were assembled in their
usual order, and that Il bare majority
| of one III either house should firmly.
| bind itself together and SAY that it
would vote to adjourn at the moment
| of meeting each day, and would do
that for two years in succession. In
that case what would happen, and
what would be the measure of redress ?
The government would die. There
/ could not be found in the whole range
of judicial and executive authority
any remedy whatever. The Executive
had no power TO destroy the govern
| meht, let the Executive travel but
one inch beyond the line of Law, and
| there was the power of Impeachment.
But if the electors among the people
who elected Representatives., or if the
electors in the State Legislatures who
created Senators, or if Senators and
Representative themselves abstain
| from the performance of their duty,
there was no remedy, At first view it
might seem remarkable, he said, that
a body of wise men like those who
| framed the Constitution should have
left out the whole side of the fabric of
government open TO such deadly as
Saults, but, on another view of the
case, they were Wise. What was their
reliance? 1t was on the sovereignty
of the natiOn-On the crowned and
and mOinted sovereign to whom all
American citizens owed their allie
glance That a0yereign {ras the LQdy
of the people of the United States, in
spired by their love of country and
their sense OF obligation to public
duty.
Up to this hour he said, our sOver-
| eign has never failed US. There had
! Oh l.,
exercise of those primary functions of
sovereignty rs either to cripple or ell
danger the government. And how
for the FIRST time in our hiStOry-and |
will say for the first time in at least
two centuries in the history of the
| English speaking peOple-has it been
proposed, or at least insisted upon,
4 that these voluntary pOWeTs shall be
used for the destruction of the govern
ment. / want it understood that the
proposition which l have read, and
which is the programme announced
to the American people of to-day, is
| this, that if we can not have our way
in a certain manner, we will destroy
the government of this country bY
using the voluntary power, not of the
people but of ourselves against the
government to destroy it. What is
our theory of law? 1t is free consent.
That is the granite foundation of our
whole structure. Nothing in this re-
public can be law that has not the free
consent of the House, the free consent
of the Senate, and the free consent of
the Executive. Or, if the Executive
refuses his free consent, then it must
have the free consent of twO-thirds of
each body. Will anybody deny that ?
Will anybody challenge line of that
Statement-that free consent is the
foundation rock of all our institutions?
And yet the programme announced
two weeks ago was, that il the Senate
refused to consent to the demand of
the House. the government should
stop, The proposition was then, and
the programme is now, that although
there is Senate to veto it, there is still
third independent factor in the legis-
lative power of the government which
is to be cOerced at the peril of the de-
structiOn of the government.
/ am not arguing at present as to
the merits of your three amendments
at all; am speaking of your meth
DDS, and L say that they are against
> fha Hnncfrfrtfinr, Of otu1- anuntr-u