The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-12-04
.Ansinn nan Wa como save

tSis. \ SE.us, shat the Secretary is ignor-
ant Of thai fof which he speaks (ana lor
such q man SO engaged to be thus igno'
rant is aJcrime), or that, not peing igno'
rant, b6 has paraded before our, Sorthern
brethren an impertinent and senseieSS
nhrase to lead them into detuslonT : i
Does he mean to say that all or any OF
tha Democratic members OF the laAt Con- |
1ress either openly advanced or covert,
70 yelierl On the ante bellum doctrine OF
State rights as 9, a,foundation upon. Whlch
n rest measures antsgonistic to the per
netnity and glory of the Federal Govern.
1poent or as an end to the attainment OF
which such measures were to be pre-
sented and justified? ? Ifso, assert IL IL
not true, either in letter or spirit, ana
challenge him to specify the man, or the
men. or the time, or the measure, or the
speeches, or the votes.
I repeat, then, why did the Secretary
use the word NULL ication" when speak
inc of an orderly, formal and ordinary
ACT of Congress to repeal an existing
iawP The word has but one true mean
ing in American politics, when used IN
connection with State rlghts-that 49,
the asserted right of State to lnterpose
its authority to invulidate an act OF Con
Cress. This is the meaning which the
honest masses who listened to Mr. Sher-
man would attach to it; and he used the
term not for any pertinence it had to tue
matters at issue, but with the knoWl'
edge that it would revive forgotten
preiudices, reawaken quieted alarm, re-
infame cooled passions and Temadden
the extinguished animosities OF sections
hope he may be disappointed In his
purpose.
He repeats the charge in another form,
and in doing 80 makes a mistatement
equally unfounded and misleading. He
saws: "When, by the firmness of the
President, they failed in their main OBJ
eCt, they soug ht by conditions in apPro-
priation bills to compel him to agree to
nullify laws in violation of his oath of
Office" What are the exact facts of the
proceeding to which he refers? The
Congress passed all the appropriation
bills, providing for all the expenses OF
the Government in all its departments,
as Mr.. Sherman himself admits. Into
those bills were inserted certain provls-
ions amendatOry of existing laws, 80 as
to withdraw the authority to use troops
at the polls to secure impartial juries in
the Federal courts, and lastly, to take
from the United States Supervisors the
power to interfere with the freedom OF
elections. 1 shall not now discuss the
proprietv of making such amendments
and repeal a part of an appropriation
bill. indorse and adopt as my own the
view presented by Hon. Frank Hurd, Of
Ohio, gentleman whom | regard as
| among the ablest, most useful and most
prominent of our public men, "lf any.
thing" says Mr.. Hurd, "has been settled
by the last legislation of the last quarter
of century, it is that even general leg
islation may be tackled to appropriation
bills, and certainly, no man at any time
in the history of this government has
disputed the proposition that measures
in the interest of economy, propositions
relating to the revenue, such as these
are. might be incorporated into bills
when originated by the House."
But for the purpose of this argument
let me admit that in their course in this
matter the Democratic party were
wrong; let me admit that they we're fla
grantly, fatally, hideously wrong; let me
admit that that scheme of tacking is a
scheme Conceived in fraud and brought
forth in iniquity." What then? The
very law which the Democrats were pro
posing to alter and amend became law
in this very manner, by the contrivance
of the very party for which Mr., Sher.
man speaks, and with which he vas CO.
operating at the very time, They and
he conceived the fraud; they and he
brought forth the iniquity; and if the
Democrats, following in their footsteps
in the single instance of trying 10 pull
down by such practice tlagrant and
cryinga evil by them created through
such practice, have committed wrong,
then is the Democratic party responsi
bic, not to Mr.. Sherman and the stall
warts, who have sinned worse than we,
but to the great body of the American
people, and to them alone, If we have
sinned in attempting thus to procure the
repeal Of an oppressive law, framed in
such manner, how much greater is
their sin who conceived and frat prac'
tiCed the plan for the purpose of strip
ping from the President of the United
States the veto power granted by the
Constitution, and who did succeed by
this very method in passing this law
over the Presidents head without hav-
| inc the Constitutional msiOrity,